Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Jack Knave on July 18, 2015, 08:32:11 PM
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
-
Regarding point (1), I think that's why he said "plausibly" rather than, say, "necessarily", isn't it?
Regarding point (2), the trouble with the word "something" is that it can mean, well, anything, can't it? I think Alien was suggesting a noun which if used would be known to refer to the 'causing existence without itself being caused' thing he was describing. People can use that noun whether they believe such a thing exists or not, just as we can use nouns like "dragon" or "telepathy" without believing that those things exist, and be confident of a reasonably common understanding of what is being discussed. "Something" doesn't quite work, does it? Try again. I could call cars "somethings", but if I said I bought a something last week you wouldn't know about my lovely new Citroen. Nouns are handy like that.
-
Looking forward to hearing your views on this, Jack
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
-
Regarding point (1), I think that's why he said "plausibly" rather than, say, "necessarily", isn't it?
Regarding point (2), the trouble with the word "something" is that it can mean, well, anything, can't it? I think Alien was suggesting a noun which if used would be known to refer to the 'causing existence without itself being caused' thing he was describing. People can use that noun whether they believe such a thing exists or not, just as we can use nouns like "dragon" or "telepathy" without believing that those things exist, and be confident of a reasonably common understanding of what is being discussed. "Something" doesn't quite work, does it? Try again. I could call cars "somethings", but if I said I bought a something last week you wouldn't know about my lovely new Citroen. Nouns are handy like that.
Firstly, Alien didn't include this definition in the philosophical arguments in his #92, quoted in the OP, which made those arguments flawed.
As for your first point he should have included for completeness a 'plausibly' for an impersonal position. That is 'God' could be no more than some kind of force or energy act that has no decision making capability but merely follows some kind of potential.
"...it can mean, well, anything, can't it?" - That is the whole point!!! What/how this universe etc. came about is open to anything and everything, because we just don't know.
But that noun, God, is not neutral because when one uses it people surreptitiously bring in their notions of It, and all manner of baggage that they have accumulated and associated with it over their life time. So "Something" is a far better word as it is neutral and includes all possible things. And what is being discussed is philosophy first as this is how Alien starts things off. Skewing the argument by slipping in the non-neutral term God is totally disingenuous and underhand.
Your car analogy thing doesn't work, we are talking about something no one, none of us, have seen or can comprehend.
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
It was an analogy. If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.
See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
It was an analogy.
No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home? If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.
See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.
As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
It was an analogy.
No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home? If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.
See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.
As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.
And what terminology would you prefer me to use? There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...
You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
It was an analogy.
No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home? If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.
See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.
As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.
And what terminology would you prefer me to use?
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...
Wow, that was helpful.
You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.
Which post are you referring to, please? It may be that I didn't on whichever post that was, but I have done a number of times in the past. Do you mean my #92 in the "What is God made from?" thread. There I wrote, "Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…" I didn't use the word "plausibly", I grant you that, but what I did write was "it has been argued", not "it has been proven/demonstrated".
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
-
On my thread "What Is God Made Of" Alien gave some philosophical arguments on post 92. Later on he gave his definition of God for these arguments as below, but I can't find this definition in those arguments in #92 :-
"For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is."
I have two objects to this (well ones I wish this thread to be about).
1) Is the "deciding to create the universe". This assumes an intelligent, conscious process but this is far from certain and could just as easily have been the action of some force-act, which would be impersonal. For example, when chemical reactions happen these are not done by a 'deciding' process. So like wise the process that brought about the universe could just as well have been of this impersonal nature.
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
There may be other objections to my claim, but I don't think the one you spoke of here is a valid one.
2) Following on from this, my answer to his last bit about a better term than God would be, in reference to 1), "Something" to highlight, besides other things, the impersonal aspect of the issue in question when tackling philosophical arguments.
So, Alien, what are your counter arguments to this and what do others think on these two issues?
See above.
It was an analogy.
No, it wasn't. You wrote that it "could just as easily have been the action of some force-act." What is a "force-act" when it is at home? If these impersonal processes can happen here then it is possible that they can happen in other realms too, such as non-material ones and so on. Your assumption that intelligence and decision making capacities can exist in non-material realms is unfounded and has no basis. Therefore, all possibilities are on the table.
See my reply to Cyberman for further details and arguments on this.
As I said it is plausible that it was personal. I am not saying it has been rigorously demonstrated.
And what terminology would you prefer me to use?
1) Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".There isn't none, for this is a realm none of us know about, it is the realm of metaphysics. Hence my analogy!!! Hence my inadequate term 'force-act' because there isn't any terms we can appeal to. I was hoping your Cambridge education had given you the broad mindedness to have cotton on to this, to think outside the box, but sadly something must have gone wrong...
2) Wow, that was helpful.
You made no mention that this God-thing of yours could have plausibly been impersonal; as impersonal as a gust of wind blowing on your face.
3) Which post are you referring to, please? It may be that I didn't on whichever post that was, but I have done a number of times in the past. Do you mean my #92 in the "What is God made from?" thread. There I wrote, "Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…" I didn't use the word "plausibly", I grant you that, but what I did write was "it has been argued", not "it has been proven/demonstrated".
1) But the context here are philosophical arguments. By bringing in the word God with that restrictive definition you have already rigged the 'dice' to give a certain answer, an answer, with your confirmation bias, that you want the argument to lead to. To paraphrase your approach: Where did the universe come from etc.? answer God, as defined by Alien. This closes off all other possible answers before you even start, but you try to present the word God, in an underhand way, to be broader and more inclusive than you actually allow it to be.
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that matter may have always existed and therefore space as well in some form, thereby forgoing the need to a thing like God.
2) If you are going to be sarcastic do use the smileys.
3) Yes, #92.
"it has been argued", :- Was that argument in #92 or is it just a general statement of what has been done elsewhere by other people?
iv. Since time and space, matter and energy came into existence at this beginning, the cause of the universe, whom we identify as God,
Again, was this 'whom we identify' following on from an argument presented in #92? And again I would object to the term God in a philosophical argument.
I need to reread this section of your #92 again. I can see that your definition is in there of a fashion.
-
Just to add a point to Jack's post 'whom' is (a) begging a question and (b) in assuming being vs non time logically incoherent
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
-
Just to add a point to Jack's post 'whom' is (a) begging a question and (b) in assuming being vs non time logically incoherent
Could you please clarify 'your' post?
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
-
...
1) But the context here are philosophical arguments. By bringing in the word God with that restrictive definition you have already rigged the 'dice' to give a certain answer, an answer, with your confirmation bias, that you want the argument to lead to. To paraphrase your approach: Where did the universe come from etc.? answer God, as defined by Alien. This closes off all other possible answers before you even start, but you try to present the word God, in an underhand way, to be broader and more inclusive than you actually allow it to be.
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
You don't seem to have considered the possibility that matter may have always existed and therefore space as well in some form, thereby forgoing the need to a thing like God.
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God".[/quote]
2) If you are going to be sarcastic do use the smileys. [/quote]Happy to do so if there is any doubt about my reply being sarcastic.
3) Yes, #92.
"it has been argued", :- Was that argument in #92 or is it just a general statement of what has been done elsewhere by other people?
By other people.
iv. Since time and space, matter and energy came into existence at this beginning, the cause of the universe, whom we identify as God,
Again, was this 'whom we identify' following on from an argument presented in #92? And again I would object to the term God in a philosophical argument.
I need to reread this section of your #92 again. I can see that your definition is in there of a fashion.
OK.
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.
See above.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Is everything about a person measurable though?
-
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Is everything about a person measurable though?
Dunno, not even sure the question makes sense. Since nothing I have said states everything about a person is measurable, am at a loss as to relevance. I understand the concept of peron to be temporal and material so the idea of a non temporal non material person seems nonsensical to me - if it does not seems nonsensical to you, can you help out in how you understand it?
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.
Quite possible - but what other is there of a person other than temporal and physical? Do you understand a non temporal non physical person? If so please explain? If I said I believed in a four sided triangle would it be sensible if you objected to say maybe you just don't understand?
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
-
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Is everything about a person measurable though?
Dunno, not even sure the question makes sense. Since nothing I have said states everything about a person is measurable, am at a loss as to relevance. I understand the concept of peron to be temporal and material so the idea of a non temporal non material person seems nonsensical to me - if it does not seems nonsensical to you, can you help out in how you understand it?
That's a great question.
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
I find this argument very odd. The whole point is to get as far as possible to the truth of the matter but what you are saying here is let us restrict ourselves to our cultural etc. notions of what God is. This 1) narrows down the possible paths one could go down to presenting possible answers and 2) assumes that ones idea of what God is is correct based on nothing but ones bias for ones culture and upbringing etc.
See above.
Wow, that was useful!!! ::) ::) :P ::) ::) ........... ;)
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.
Quite possible - but what other is there of a person other than temporal and physical? Do you understand a non temporal non physical person? If so please explain? If I said I believed in a four sided triangle would it be sensible if you objected to say maybe you just don't understand?
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.
That's like one of the come backs I use against you and yet you don't accept it. Should NS?
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?
Non temporal just makes no sense. We're not just talking about space-time here, but any notion of a metaphysical temporality where there is some form of continuum. I don't know how one even begins to make sense of something "doing" anything void of this. It's alogical as being able to do stuff "at the same time" is not even wrong in a non temporal state.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
How would it not? If you want to go to intentionality - that's temporal - so your solution is out the window.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
So not a person as I have an understanding of the term - ergo nonsensical
Or you just don't understand, so not therefore nonsensical.
That's like one of the come backs I use against you and yet you don't accept it. Should NS?
Nope, NS said he didn't understand something so therefore it is nonsensical. There are lots of things I don't understand, but that is often down to my lack of knowledge and not because they are nonsensical. His ergo was not a valid ergo.
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
Why should "to NS" have any relevance?
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
How would it not? If you want to go to intentionality - that's temporal - so your solution is out the window.
I'd go with "volition" rather than "intentionality", I think.
Time for tea.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?
The subject matter is about what caused the universe (or everything) to come about - as posited in the Kalam argument and so on. So we are dealing with unknowns here things we can't have any evidence for or data, and so on. That is, metaphysics. My objection is that Alien restricts the possible answers by only allowing his version of God through the backdoor by introducing a broader deistic God in first and then gradually defining God in a way to suit what he wants the answer to be. The dice have been loaded.
He has used these philosophical arguments to be part of the reason why he became a Christian but has tainted the logic with this warped narrowing of the answer by misusing or poorly applying the word God.
Therefore, it isn't about what is real for us humans but all the possible metaphysical answers that can be conjured up for the philosophical arguments without, hopefully, not getting too silly about it.
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.
A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.
We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
Why should "to NS" have any relevance?
For the same reason as by definition a triangle does not have four sides. A person is by definition temporal and spatial. It is not to me, it is the applied logic of your position.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?
The subject matter is about what caused the universe (or everything) to come about - as posited in the Kalam argument and so on. So we are dealing with unknowns here things we can't have any evidence for or data, and so on. That is, metaphysics. My objection is that Alien restricts the possible answers by only allowing his version of God through the backdoor by introducing a broader deistic God in first and then gradually defining God in a way to suit what he wants the answer to be. The dice have been loaded.
That is incorrect. I have never argued that the Kalam argument gets you to a theistic God, let alone the Christian God. I'm a bit confused that you think otherwise since I have been as clear as I possibly can in all my discussions here and on the BBC boards.
He has used these philosophical arguments to be part of the reason why he became a Christian but has tainted the logic with this warped narrowing of the answer by misusing or poorly applying the word God.
Er, that is what you are claiming in the OP. Just repeating the OP does not prove anything.
Therefore, it isn't about what is real for us humans but all the possible metaphysical answers that can be conjured up for the philosophical arguments without, hopefully, not getting too silly about it.
So metaphysics cannot be about reality?
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.
A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.
We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.
A force is a physical thing and, as such, part of the universe so it can't be the cause of the universe. Perhaps you mean "force" in some other way to the usual meaning?
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.
OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.
I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
Why should "to NS" have any relevance?
For the same reason as by definition a triangle does not have four sides. A person is by definition temporal and spatial. It is not to me, it is the applied logic of your position.
That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
Why should "to NS" have any relevance?
For the same reason as by definition a triangle does not have four sides. A person is by definition temporal and spatial. It is not to me, it is the applied logic of your position.
That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.
Yes, I know, it's also part of the normal definitions of person just as having three sides is part of what is a triangle. You seem to think such a 'thing' can be so it obviously is not true for you. I am allowing for to to try and explain how such a thing, in absence of what the normal definition can be. So far you seem to be avoiding it.
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
-
As I understand it a person is something like a rational, self-conscious entity with a will and capable of interaction with other persons.
A triangle is defined (OED) as "A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles" so it can't have 4 sides.
Yeop and rational and self conscious and interaction (by definition a temporal spatial statement)to me have spatial and temporal definitions so they can't be non temporal non spatial
Why should "to NS" have any relevance?
For the same reason as by definition a triangle does not have four sides. A person is by definition temporal and spatial. It is not to me, it is the applied logic of your position.
That's not what I asked. I asked why "to NS" (your "to me") was in your sentence.
Yes, I know, it's also part of the normal definitions of person just as having three sides is part of what is a triangle. You seem to think such a 'thing' can be so it obviously is not true for you. I am allowing for to to try and explain how such a thing, in absence of what the normal definition can be. So far you seem to be avoiding it.
So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?
Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened. It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.
O.
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?
Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.
That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space. It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.
O.
No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.
-
So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.
Which is not how you normally proceed which is to cite a dictionary definition and then go from there. Now we have had the discussions in the past where you seem to misunderstand dictionaries as being precriptive when they are descriptive but to be consistent form your viewpoint you should take a set of definitions such as
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/person
so while this mentions person being party of Chrsitian theology, can yiou explain a non spatail, non temporal person? In what sense of 'person' and please feel free to add to the definitions is an intentional being not temporal?
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?
Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.
That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space. It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.
O.
No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.
One hopes so because you are not getting close
-
That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything.
Implicit in the idea that an event occurred which initiated the universe is some sort of reality in which the event can occur - we have no conceptual framework and no data in which to adequately describe it.
In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.
This is, perhaps, where the explanation breaks down. Space - the universe - has been expanding since its inception, but not 'into' anything, it's a set of dimensions that aren't duplicated outside of itself - we can deduce this from the lack of interactions we'd expect to see if there were more of the same thing outside.
However, the event that initiated the Big Bang - I believe the current best hypothesis is an asymmetric breakdown of fundamental particles - has to have occurred in some reality, however divorced from ours. It cannot happen in 'nothing', just in nothing that we'd recognise.
O.
It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.
O.
No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.
[/quote]
-
So how would you define "person"? I've given my definition, at least roughly.
Which is not how you normally proceed which is to cite a dictionary definition and then go from there. Now we have had the discussions in the past where you seem to misunderstand dictionaries as being precriptive when they are descriptive but to be consistent form your viewpoint you should take a set of definitions such as
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/person
so while this mentions person being party of Chrsitian theology, can yiou explain a non spatail, non temporal person? In what sense of 'person' and please feel free to add to the definitions is an intentional being not temporal?
See #32.
-
You have given an example of a physical process in your comparison. It would not have been a physical process which started the universe if the Universe did indeed have an absolute start, because physical processes are part of the Universe.
Why? The universe has physical rules, but we do not know what physics operates in the extra-universal space into which the universe emerged. Time as we understand it came into being with the creation of the universe, but some comparable 'dimension' may well be operating beyond that.
O.
The universe "emerged" into "extra-universal space"? Really? Why do you say that?
Because we lack the vocabulary to accurately define what happened.
That doesn't mean the universe emerged into anything. In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space. It probably bears little resemblance to the time/space convention in which we exist, but conceptually there has to be some existence in which an event occurs.
O.
No, that is incorrect. Some of the others here might be able to explain this better than I can.
One hopes so because you are not getting close
OK. Please explain it better than me. Did the universe emerge into extra-universal space (to quote Outrider)?
-
...]In fact, the mainstream understanding is that it didn't expand into anything. Space itself expanded. This is one reason why "The Big Bang" is not the best term to use as it implies an explosion into existing space.
This is, perhaps, where the explanation breaks down. Space - the universe - has been expanding since its inception, but not 'into' anything, it's a set of dimensions that aren't duplicated outside of itself - we can deduce this from the lack of interactions we'd expect to see if there were more of the same thing outside.
However, the event that initiated the Big Bang - I believe the current best hypothesis is an asymmetric breakdown of fundamental particles - has to have occurred in some reality, however divorced from ours. It cannot happen in 'nothing', just in nothing that we'd recognise.
O.
If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?
-
If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?
Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.
O.
-
If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?
Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.
O.
btw, wb Outrider :D
-
If there was an absolute start to the universe, why would it need to happen in anything?
Why would it not? We have no conceptual framework in which events occur without antecedant conditions, whether causitive or not.
O.
I realise that this is stuff we struggle to explain in terms which are understandable, but you seemed to claim that any absolute start to the universe would need to happen "in" something. If you think that then it is up to you to explain why as the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, at least in normal discussions/debates.
I'm not arguing that there are no causes to any absolute beginning of the universe anyway. In fact the Kalam argument assumes that there is a cause.
Anyway, now off to Heathrow to pick someone up. Time to sit on the M25 and contemplate how wonderful it is to live in rural Norfolk. :)
-
I'm not arguing that there are no causes to any absolute beginning of the universe anyway. In fact the Kalam argument assumes that there is a cause.
It's not demonstrable, we have no evidence (that we're aware of) of anything outside of the universe. It's deductive inasmuch as everything we see in physics has antecedant conditions - we have no information on what those conditions are, but nevertheless...
It may be that those antecedant conditions are an absence of energy and matter in order for there to be no interference with spontaneous break-down of potential into matter and anti-matter, but that's just supposition, it's just as (un)likely that those conditions are a physical environment which does not interact with those matter/anti-matter breakdowns.
What I can't see any way round is some corollary of time in this extra-universal physics - there has to be a differential passage of background existence in order for changes of state to occur, and the step between no universe and the emergent universe is a process which involves a change of state.
Whether that's physics, metaphysics, metaphor or simply the limitations of human understanding is completely up in the air, to me.
O.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
Non spatial, non temporal force has the same issue for me - what's one of those?
The subject matter is about what caused the universe (or everything) to come about - as posited in the Kalam argument and so on. So we are dealing with unknowns here things we can't have any evidence for or data, and so on. That is, metaphysics. My objection is that Alien restricts the possible answers by only allowing his version of God through the backdoor by introducing a broader deistic God in first and then gradually defining God in a way to suit what he wants the answer to be. The dice have been loaded.
That is incorrect. I have never argued that the Kalam argument gets you to a theistic God, let alone the Christian God. I'm a bit confused that you think otherwise since I have been as clear as I possibly can in all my discussions here and on the BBC boards.
He has used these philosophical arguments to be part of the reason why he became a Christian but has tainted the logic with this warped narrowing of the answer by misusing or poorly applying the word God.
Er, that is what you are claiming in the OP. Just repeating the OP does not prove anything.
Therefore, it isn't about what is real for us humans but all the possible metaphysical answers that can be conjured up for the philosophical arguments without, hopefully, not getting too silly about it.
So metaphysics cannot be about reality?
But in the Kalam argument you posit that this God has a personal element to it and in fact has all the other attributes which I would consider to be at least a theistic God. What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?
I asked you on What Is God Made Of what caused you/your reasons to be come a Christian and you gave me #92. What else I'm to conclude than this is part of your reasons for becoming a Christian?
So metaphysics cannot be about reality?
I think Kant answered that one. It has to be grounded in our experiences and understanding else it ends up in contradictions and analogous incoherences. It would seem obvious that as we have none of these about how things began it is pure metaphysics we are dealing with here.
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.
A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.
We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.
A force is a physical thing and, as such, part of the universe so it can't be the cause of the universe. Perhaps you mean "force" in some other way to the usual meaning?
My post is quite clear. A 'Force' that has all the properties you give for God in the philosophical arguments but being impersonal.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.
OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.
I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
-
Well, if it is plausibly personal and is non-material, non-spatial, extremely powerful, timeless and so on then htat fits most people's basic understanding of the term "God".
It fits some ideas about 'Brahman' from the Vedas, and also some very inscrutable texts from the Gnostic Basilides - which, I suggest, do not conform to most people's basic understanding of the term "God" (most people brought up in the Judaeo-Christian west, that is).
Most of the people on this board have been brought up in the so-called Judaeo-Christian West, and are on the Christian Topic message board so I would think they have a reasonable understanding of what "God" means when I use the term (rather than when I use the term "Christian God").
Even so, Jack is emphasising the 'impersonal' rather than the 'plausibly personal' aspects of this "something". Furthermore, the descriptions of the God of early parts of Genesis seems remarkably different from the 'God' of mystics like Meister Eckart. There really is no consensus on these things - not even in the images of 'God' portrayed throughout the Bible, though I know your procrustean bed is ever at hand to force some kind of conformity.
That would depend on whether you take the idea of the portrayal of God walking in the Garden of Eden literally.
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
-
...
But in the Kalam argument you posit that this God has a personal element to it and in fact has all the other attributes which I would consider to be at least a theistic God.
I don't. I have said many times, including on this thread, that the argument, if correct, does not take us to a theistic (intervening) God, but leaves open whether he would intervene/sustain/do miracles. Where do you think the Kalam says anything about that? I'm not aware of anything. What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?
Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument.
I asked you on What Is God Made Of what caused you/your reasons to be come a Christian and you gave me #92. What else I'm to conclude than this is part of your reasons for becoming a Christian?
Nothing major, that I can remember. I became a Christian very largely through looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Kalam and other arguments back that up (at least in the understanding of an immensely powerful, non-material, non-spatial, timeless creator of the universe who is plausibly personal), but I learnt of them much later.
So metaphysics cannot be about reality?
I think Kant answered that one. It has to be grounded in our experiences and understanding else it ends up in contradictions and analogous incoherences. It would seem obvious that as we have none of these about how things began it is pure metaphysics we are dealing with here.
Why do you think it is obvious?
-
Alien (your #17)
So what other timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful plausibly personal entity might that be? How would you define the general theistic understanding of "God"? I'd say it is the above plus said theistic God would be involved in the continued existence of the universe and you will remember that I have stated on a number of occasions in discussions about the Kalam argument that it does not take us all the way to a theistic understanding of a God, but it does take us to a deistic God.
But you seem to fail to understand that by using the word God you have started to close the argument down and channel it towards your chosen goal. And particularly by your preferred definition of said word, which as Dicky has pointed out is not acceptable by all on this planet. Your sarcastic response which I labelled 2) in my last post to you shows how you keep, for some reason, missing my salient points.
Though we can focus particular on the Kalam argument I am talking generally about the use of the word God, that is not, in philosophical arguments. The word God is specific, even when used in a looser framework, and therefore, is not and can not be used as a general term. I.e how about considering something outside the deistic God paradigm as the driver of the universe?
OK suggest something "timeless, spaceless, non-material and immensely powerful" which would fit the bill if the Kalam argument is/were correct.
------------------------------------
That is an entirely different matter. Here we are discussing your claim that I have misused the term "God
The misuse is by having it where it shouldn't be considered as the sole answer to philosophical arguments, especially where its definition narrows the field. Therefore, pointing this out is done by bringing in other alternatives for the answer in question.
Well, suggest something then and we can see if it would fit the bill.
A force with those qualities, just as you have posited a person with those qualities.
We also have the condition to consider that we just can't know the answer; a blank void we can't intellectually penetrate. I did suggest "Something" before to suit this kind of expanse.
A force is a physical thing and, as such, part of the universe so it can't be the cause of the universe. Perhaps you mean "force" in some other way to the usual meaning?
My post is quite clear. A 'Force' that has all the properties you give for God in the philosophical arguments but being impersonal.
But your force cannot be a physical thing and the cause of the universe as forces are part of the universe, surely. You would be saying it created itself.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
-
What is a non material non spatial person? In simple terms this is nonsensical.
A person who is not made of matter and not "in" space.
A non material, non spatial, non temporal impersonal force.
Why not consider this as one of the possible answers to your Kalam argument?
In trying to work this one out may the Force be with you!!!
So how would such a force come to create the universe?
Like your God it just does. What you ask about my Force I can ask about your God and the answers you give for your God I can give for my Force. Both are just as valid as the other or not.
OK. If your Force is non-spatial (all the forces we know of currently operate in space), timeless (all the forces we know of currently operate in time), non-material (all the forces we know of currently act on matter though), immensely powerful and plausibly personal, then fine. It is just that most people would understand that to be a representation of a God/god.
I'd be happy to describe it as Woggledymorph if that would help, but most people would understand it to be a representation of a God/god.
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.
Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
Well that was straight out of left field without even an iota of relevance to my post.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!
Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!
Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?
Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?
-
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.
Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
Why not personal? What do you actually mean by 'personal'?
And why only this universe? So you know for a fact that there are no other universes?
-
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
erm, no. they occur because of forces at work (such as electrovalent bonding) amongst the various particles. If was "because they just do", it would not be possible to predict and analyse reactions, and so chemistry wouldn't be a science. Now, admittedly, when we get right down to forces, such a gravity, our knowledge of how and why those forces work is not complete - but not knowing what is going on doesn't mean "it just happens" - it means we still have a lot to learn.
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.
Please note my post was to Alien, so it is all theoretical about how the universe and everything came about.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
Even though I have no idea why I was asked these questions, I would say that a 'force' isn't sentient and therefore has no intended purpose, so the why question is meaningless.
Please note my post was to Alien, so it is all theoretical about how the universe and everything came about.
I know. I was referring to the questions Alan posed to me.
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!
Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?
Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?
If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!
Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?
Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?
If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.
Nonsense. If you said "If Winnie the Pooh is a bear, then it follows that he must speak 8 languages" I would point out that your logic was flawed. I don't need to tell you how many languages he speaks as an "alternative explanation". Your logic was flawed. It is not impossible for a story to refer to sons of god and for the writers to believe that the sons were not gods, and for another story to refer to the son of god, and for some people to believe that that character is god. I have no explanation at all - I have no idea what the writers of that story thought "sons of god" meant.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
-
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.
Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
Blast! Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?
"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Yes, done that. And?
-
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
erm, no. they occur because of forces at work (such as electrovalent bonding) amongst the various particles. If was "because they just do", it would not be possible to predict and analyse reactions, and so chemistry wouldn't be a science. Now, admittedly, when we get right down to forces, such a gravity, our knowledge of how and why those forces work is not complete - but not knowing what is going on doesn't mean "it just happens" - it means we still have a lot to learn.
Your last bit was more of what I was getting at. We will never know the answer to the question Why? Why this way and not some other way... Why the laws of physics as we know them...
Answer: It just is.
-
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
That doesn't follow at all! Sticking "Therefore" in front of it doesn't make it look like valid deductive reasoning.
I see you haven't provided a plausible alternative explanation!
Sons of God means God's sons. Like begets like does it not?
Why would I need to provide an alternative explanation?
If you disagree with me then you must have your reasons which would include an alternative explanation.
Nonsense. If you said "If Winnie the Pooh is a bear, then it follows that he must speak 8 languages" I would point out that your logic was flawed. I don't need to tell you how many languages he speaks as an "alternative explanation". Your logic was flawed. It is not impossible for a story to refer to sons of god and for the writers to believe that the sons were not gods, and for another story to refer to the son of god, and for some people to believe that that character is god. I have no explanation at all - I have no idea what the writers of that story thought "sons of god" meant.
If you don't know then why are you chirping in? Especially a few posts back when you initially replied to a post of mine?
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
Because it is impersonal. In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.
-
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.
Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
Blast! Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?
"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"
O-levels take 2 years, Alien. We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.
Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Yes, done that. And?
You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.
I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".
-
Except non-personal. Your reasons for bringing in the personal aspect is not justified and so both possibilities have to be present as alternatives. I also have problems with timelessness and non-spacial as well but these can be left for the present moment.
Why Woggledymorph, why not "Something"
OK with "Something" which is non-material, non-spatial, immensely powerful and timeless and has a reason why it caused the universe.
Why not personal though? I appreciate that it is not proved that it would be personal, but if there is/was your force, why only this universe?
The reason is that it just did. Why do chemical reactions occur? Because they just do!
Blast! Why didn't you tell me about this in 1974 before I did 5 years doing chemistry O-Level, 2 years doing chemistry A-level and a chemistry degree?
"Chemical reactions occur 'because they do.'"
O-levels take 2 years, Alien.
You wot? I learnt chemistry for my chemistry O-level over 5 years.We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.
So you are unable to come to conclusions about why they are like they are? Why is that? If you only apply scientific methods you will never come to know why science works, I would grant you that. That is one of the limitations of science.
Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.
Nope, both have been good for me.
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Yes, done that. And?
You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.
You didn't paraphrase it; you misquoted it.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.
I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".
How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.
-
We may be able to discern patterns in the way things behave, and thereby set up rules to the phenomena we see, but we can never know ultimately why they behave as they do. This is because this is all we do observe phenomena not the things-in-themselves.
So you are unable to come to conclusions about why they are like they are? Why is that? If you only apply scientific methods you will never come to know why science works, I would grant you that. That is one of the limitations of science.
Your last bit contradicts your first bit!!! What are you trying to say?
So you have something more powerful than science to understand the physical world of matter and its forces? You can discern things-in-themselves can you?
Yes, you've wasted your life, mate. First science and then Christianity.
Nope, both have been good for me.
Yeah! How?
-
...
Genesis talks of the gods and the gods having sex with women, which contributed for the need for the flood.....we are told.
Where? Are you certain of that?
"We are told"? What is that meant to mean? Who is telling you that? Skeptics Annotated Bible or some such "authority"?
Gen 6:4 ...the sons of God had sex with the daughters of men and had children by them. All these died in the flood so must have been wicked in the eyes of the Lord...?
Why do you think that translation is correct? For a start off, the claim was that gods having sex with women, not "sons of God."
You claim that Jesus was a son of God and that Jesus is a God. Therefore, it follows that any place that says sons of God must imply they too are Gods.
Genesis talks of gods and also, "Man has become like us gods". And like begets like.
May I suggest you look up the actual texts. Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods". Also look up Genesis 6:4 and see if it really does mean literal sons of God. Have a look at the use of that term elsewhere.
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
Yes, I've spotted the difference. The NIV says for Gen 3:22, "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” and for Genesis 6:4 it says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."
Nowhere does it say, "Man has become like us gods" as you claimed. Yours was a misquote.
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Yes, done that. And?
You're just nit-picking. I was referring to the overall sentiment of it. Just because I paraphrased it and didn't quote it exactly doesn't change what it is saying. It is possible to say the same thing in different ways.
You didn't paraphrase it; you misquoted it.
And you're nit-picking where no nit-picking is required. Its meaning is as I say because that is what it expresses.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.
I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".
How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.
You said that I was trying to steer "the gullible fool towards my notion of what God is". Who is the gullible fool you were thinking of? :)
I have said that the cause of the universe is plausibly personal. That does not mean that it certainly is personal. Anyone who understands what "plausible" means will realise that, surely? So, no, I am not trying to fool anyone.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
-
Hang on, on one hand is Alan trying to say that all forces we know of are physical and/or interact with physical things so can't cause the universe, yet on the other hand trying to pander to a person as the cause as if there's an example of one that isn't, like forces, physical? Wow...
OK, if this force is not physical, how and why did it create the universe?
I said to you that what ever you ask of the 'Force' I can ask of your God. You have no 'how' or 'why' for your God except speculation, which is what I have for the 'Force'.
So this "Force" has all the attributes of God. Why not just call it "God"?
Because it is impersonal.In the Kalam arguments you said that this initiator could plausibly be a personal agent, which you attributed the nomenclature God. It would follow from the 'plausible' bit that it could plausibly be an impersonal agent but you don't mention this. Why? Because you want to steer the gullible fool towards your notion of what God is. Your argument with respect to this is incomplete and therefore flawed or at least disingenuous.
I suggest you look up the word "plausible" in a dictionary. Hint, it does not mean "certain".
How you came to think that that was what I thought I don't know. I suggest you reread my post. If A isn't certain then A' is a possibility.
You said that I was trying to steer "the gullible fool towards my notion of what God is". Who is the gullible fool you were thinking of? :)
I have said that the cause of the universe is plausibly personal. That does not mean that it certainly is personal. Anyone who understands what "plausible" means will realise that, surely? So, no, I am not trying to fool anyone.
That should be 'fools', the poor souls you are trying to convert and will not doubt from weakness succumb to you deceit.
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?
Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?
Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.
The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.
If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)
Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.
But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
Us: plural.
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
-
Alien
I would like a cogent and serious reply to the first bit of #106, please.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?
Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.
The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.
If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)
Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.
But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?
Elohim is a plural word, yet when it is used to speak of God the verb form it takes is singular. A literal rendering would be "Gods is great". This demonstrates that, at least with the word elohim where it refers to God, a plural is used to depict a singular being. This bit is not controversial.
As for the "we" bits we have been discussing, this seems to be something similar, as I say not unlike the Queen (allegedly) saying, "We are not amused?" I am giving an analogy there and analogies do not prove anything, though they may illustrate something. The use of "we" and "us" by God in Genesis is not proof of him speaking of there being gods/Gods plural. That is all.
As for how it is translated, sometimes it is not possible to translate something into another language without a fairly long explanation.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
Us: plural.
Where is the word "gods" in the Hebrew?
-
Us: plural.
Where is the word "gods" in the Hebrew?
"Us" includes the person speaking which, in Gen 3:22 is God.
Anyway, I'm bowing out of this fight because, when I first responded, I was assuming that you were disputing the idea that Genesis says that Adam became like a god or gods at all. It was only just before the last post I made that I've checked back and realised it is only a dispute over how many gods there were present. I'll accept your Royal We point.
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
So where does it say, "Man has become like us gods", as in gods (plural)?
It's the notion and sentiment that counts. One can say the same thing in various ways and they will all mean the same thing.
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
So if I say, "We sat and watched the news this evening, I am claiming that there was more than one Alan Co********* in our lounge this evening"?
Are you not aware of the use of the plural in Hebrew to denote majesty (not unlike the Queen saying, "We are not amused")? Heck, elohim is plural, yet is used in places in the OT where God is clearly one rather than plural. Even that were not so (which it is), why would it not be God (singular) speaking to the angels? Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT. Bear in mind that the text of Genesis 1-3 is not the oldest in the OT so it is not an indication of a change from polytheism.
The Queen is referring to her court, who are all humans and of her 'clan'.
If what you say is right then why did the translators not adjust it to suit. It clearly says 'God said' and It uses the term 'we'. If it is obvious that only one person is talking then why wasn't the 'we' been replaced by 'I'? Or if the Hebrew word for God is plural then why doesn't it say "the Gods said". (so what you are saying about the Hebrew is that when it says God anywhere in the Bible it actually means "the Gods"?)
Why do think that God is speaking to other gods when that happens nowhere else in the OT.
But it does in Gen 11:7 (well in the NIV) - "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." If God, singular, is so powerful why would It need anyone else to help with this task, say like the angels?
Elohim is a plural word, yet when it is used to speak of God the verb form it takes is singular. A literal rendering would be "Gods is great". This demonstrates that, at least with the word elohim where it refers to God, a plural is used to depict a singular being. This bit is not controversial.
As for the "we" bits we have been discussing, this seems to be something similar, as I say not unlike the Queen (allegedly) saying, "We are not amused?" I am giving an analogy there and analogies do not prove anything, though they may illustrate something. The use of "we" and "us" by God in Genesis is not proof of him speaking of there being gods/Gods plural. That is all.
As for how it is translated, sometimes it is not possible to translate something into another language without a fairly long explanation.
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.
The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.
I await your presentation.
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
-
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
Sounds very likely to me.
-
Alien
You haven't replied to my #123.
-
...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
Why?
-
...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.
You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times. I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.
If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
Why?
Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that? That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.
-
Alien, I asked for a reply to #123. You have replied to #122. I need a reply to #123.
-
...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.
You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times.
And you evidence for this is what? I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.
Point me in the right direction then of some evidence which shows the Hebrews got their beliefs about God from polytheists. Thanks.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.
If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.
Agreed.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
Why?
Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that?
You tell me, mate. You keep coming up with stuff where I am still waiting to see some evidence. That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.
What's that in English?
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.
The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.
I await your presentation.
Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
-
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
Sounds very likely to me.
Why? Do you like Christmas crackers as well?
-
Alien, I asked for a reply to #123. You have replied to #122. I need a reply to #123.
.... please.
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
-
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'? If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.
Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post
-
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
Source?
You might find this wiki page of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
On a quick skim, 30+ of the deities listed here are non-Jewish.
-
...
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
Because "They have become like one of me" would not make sense.
The problem with your take is that you are taking the sentence out of context. Look at the rest of the chapter and you will see that God is referred to in the singular. Nowhere is God seen as plural.
You want context. Well my take on this is the phylogeny of the gods. That the monotheists' Gods have come from the polytheistic gods of the pagans and that what we have here is a residue from those times.
And you evidence for this is what? I would suggest you look further a field than the chapter, Genesis and your myopic world of the Bible etc.
Point me in the right direction then of some evidence which shows the Hebrews got their beliefs about God from polytheists. Thanks.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
"Us" and "we" does not indicate "many of us". The most you can claim is for two.
If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith.
Agreed.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
Why?
Isn't one of the names of God, The One, or something like that?
You tell me, mate. You keep coming up with stuff where I am still waiting to see some evidence. That is the symbolic significance of the number one. So in the trinity God is seen as being more than one in Itself? besides the HS and JC.
What's that in English?
My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism. The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one.
As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they, they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon). These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.
3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?
As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification. So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.
The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.
I await your presentation.
Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y
What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from - and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.
Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent. And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs. And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?
-
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'? If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.
Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post
You forget this is God speaking, not some Hebrew. Doesn't it know the difference between singular and plural? If there is only one of It then it would use the singular. By using the plural it is indicating that there is more than one of It.
Alien's #118 is him pretending not to understand. I explained this at the time that I was paraphrasing.
-
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
Source?
You might find this wiki page of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deities_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
On a quick skim, 30+ of the deities listed here are non-Jewish.
I haven't looked at this but I don't think it would help. The idea was that five of the tribes that came together to form what would be the Jews etc. were powerful in their own right and wanted their monotheistic God to be in the Bible for the newly formed group. So it seems the various books/stories of these tribes were just lumped together to start what we know as the Bible.
-
...
My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism.
I thought you lot didn't go in for anecdotal evidence. The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one.
You've forgotten people like Abraham who were before then.
As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they,
Er, no. No-one is claiming that. they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon).
Oh dear. Not that old chestnut again. You really ought to read a bit wider. The phrase "confirmation bias" comes to mind. These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.
That's not evidence; it's just repeating your claim.
3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?
Eh? Where did you get that idea from? What is "3)"?
As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification.
Eh? So it is something someone told you down the pub how long ago? So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?
"The One"? He is described as being one, e.g. in the Shema Deut 6 and this as quoted by Jesus.
What exactly is it that you are trying to say?
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.
The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.
I await your presentation.
Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y
What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from
? Why? Why would he have to come from anywhere? - and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.
Why? It is not necessary to explain an explanation for the explanation to be a good explanation. However, the idea is that God did not have a beginning.
Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent.
Why? And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs.
So forces "in the universe" created the universe? And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.
I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?
Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.
-
I say again, if that is the case then why didn't the translators adjust for this?
For what, the fact that royals and their equivalents use what we now call the 'royal we'? If anything, I'd suggest that they make sure that they use the most appropriate term in the English language for 'majesty'.
And the issue here isn't necessarily the Hebrew word for God but that 'us' and 'we' were used which clearly indicates 'many of us'.
Except that Hebrew words for God are the means by which we learn about the nature of God, and, as both Alien and I have pointed out, the terms 'us' and 'we' don't always indicate 'many of us'.
And applying the plural to the name of God (and modern man may be misusing the idea of pluralism here i.e. wrong understanding and context to their culture) would seem to me to denigrate God as being singular and unique would signify Its greatness, oneness and completeness.
and, in response to the italicised section, the use of the plural is often used to denote majesty and power.
Jack, you seem to completely ignore everything that Alien said in his post #118, even though you quote in your follow up post, and then ask the very questions he has given answers to in that post
You forget this is God speaking, not some Hebrew. Doesn't it know the difference between singular and plural? If there is only one of It then it would use the singular. By using the plural it is indicating that there is more than one of It.
Alien's #118 is him pretending not to understand. I explained this at the time that I was paraphrasing.
Paraphasing? Misquoting actually.
-
#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.
'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.
-
...
My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism.
I thought you lot didn't go in for anecdotal evidence. The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one.
You've forgotten people like Abraham who were before then.
As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they,
Er, no. No-one is claiming that. they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon).
Oh dear. Not that old chestnut again. You really ought to read a bit wider. The phrase "confirmation bias" comes to mind. These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.
That's not evidence; it's just repeating your claim.
3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?
Eh? Where did you get that idea from? What is "3)"?
As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification.
Eh? So it is something someone told you down the pub how long ago? So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?
"The One"? He is described as being one, e.g. in the Shema Deut 6 and this as quoted by Jesus.
What exactly is it that you are trying to say?
Monotheism is a recent development, everyone knows this that's why I said anecdote because I haven't to hand the info foe this, but everyone with half a brain knows this.
Abraham? You have proof that he ever existed?
You mentioned the Hebrews first not me, so it is up to you to say where they came from.
In this case the old chestnuts are the best!!! And it is a very valid point which you are trying to avoid by rolling your eyes.
You have this habit of agreeing with someone and then denying it. In your previous post you agreed with me, I just followed it on to the obvious conclusion.
-
...
It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.
I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.
Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-
"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."
You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.
Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.
In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"
"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."
It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.
The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.
I await your presentation.
Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y
What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from
? Why? Why would he have to come from anywhere? - and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.
Why? It is not necessary to explain an explanation for the explanation to be a good explanation. However, the idea is that God did not have a beginning.
Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent.
Why? And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs.
So forces "in the universe" created the universe? And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?
If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?
If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.
I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.
They are an expert in their field. They wouldn't have done it without some justification else they would have made a prat of themselves on prime time TV. I mention in the hope others may have come across such articles and data in this area and as such add to this discussion. I never claimed it was sign and sealed and an absolute truth, did I?
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?
Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.
So where did the angels come from. No mention of them in Genesis...
And this then implies that they know right and wrong etc. as God and man does?
-
#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.
'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.
The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?
I am aware that Akhenaten's religious position wasn't a pure monotheistic one. However, his actions as you describe may have been more political to keep the peace as most of the priestly groups and others with power were far from happy about what he was doing.
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
-
Pics or it didn't happen.
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
Understand the first verse of Genesis. A seemingly plural noun (Elohim) is used with the singular form of the verb to create (Bara). Why do you think this is?
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
That is a mere belief, NOT a FACT! ::)
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
Jack is right, and you are wrong.
Theism is about beliefs and people have entertained all manner of beliefs to try to explain the numinous, and there has been a broad evolution from animist and polytheist beliefs towards monotheist beliefs over time, this perhaps mirroring the evolution of human societies from tribal groupings towards larger civilisations. The Egyptian Pharaoah Akhenaten is often quoted as the first monotheist with his identification with Aten.
-
I am aware that Akhenaten's religious position wasn't a pure monotheistic one. However, his actions as you describe may have been more political to keep the peace as most of the priestly groups and others with power were far from happy about what he was doing.
This is borne out by the observation that shortly after Akhenaten's death, all the innovations Akh. made were overthrown, and the previous array of Egyptian deities were reinstated much as before.
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
That would be the omniscient one, who didn't know where A and E were hiding?
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
That's all just fiction though.
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
God has legs does It? Or is this just another symbol of Its majesty and power, as in the plural of 'we'? ;D
-
...
Monotheism is a recent development, everyone knows this that's why I said anecdote because I haven't to hand the info foe this, but everyone with half a brain knows this.
Hmm. This must be one of the most blatant argumentum ad populums for some months.
Now, assume I have only 45% of a normal brain. Please supply me with some evidence for your claim. Now you may be correct in what you assert, but it would be good to see some evidence for it.
What do you mean by "recent development"? 2000 years ago? 3000 years ago? The reason I would have no real problem with the first monotheists coming later than the first polytheists is that, like many other evangelicals, I don't see Genesis 1-3 as being an exhaustive, scientific account of man's origins. I'd put Adam and Eve down as possibly the first monotheists.
Abraham? You have proof that he ever existed?
Proof? No. I do have evidence that he existed and so do you. It's in Genesis, for example.
You mentioned the Hebrews first not me, so it is up to you to say where they came from.
Nope. I first mentioned them thus:
You: What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?
Me: Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument.
There is no need to demonstrate where the Hebrews came from for my simple explanation of what additional attributes are needed over and above the Kalam argument to be speaking of a Christian God.
In this case the old chestnuts are the best!!! And it is a very valid point which you are trying to avoid by rolling your eyes.
Is this meant to be a serious point?
You have this habit of agreeing with someone and then denying it. In your previous post you agreed with me, I just followed it on to the obvious conclusion.
In what way?
-
... And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?
If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?[/quote]You can say that. However, it would help to know why you thing an impersonal force would generate a universe and not 2, 3, 4 or a huge number one after the other. Stuff like that.If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.
What's an "impersonal agent"?
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.
I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.
They are an expert in their field. They wouldn't have done it without some justification else they would have made a prat of themselves on prime time TV. I mention in the hope others may have come across such articles and data in this area and as such add to this discussion. I never claimed it was sign and sealed and an absolute truth, did I?
So who were these experts? Are you saying you believe everything on every documentary on the telly?
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?
Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.
So where did the angels come from. No mention of them in Genesis...
No, but they do seem to be mentioned at the start of Job, which is likely to be an older text than Genesis. So what about them not being mentioned in Genesis? As I say, I reckon it is God using the plural of majesty. That is why I said "possibly" the angels as well.
And this then implies that they know right and wrong etc. as God and man does?
Yes, I would think so. Why?
-
#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.
'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.
The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?
I most definitely am not a YECer. I don't think the YEC position is the best understanding of the biblical texts and definitely not the best scientific understanding.
As for the origin of the Hebrews, I have pointed out above why I mentioned the Hebrews and it didn't require knowing their origin.
-
Pics or it didn't happen.
:)
-
Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".
Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’
Understand the first verse of Genesis. A seemingly plural noun (Elohim) is used with the singular form of the verb to create (Bara). Why do you think this is?
Decent point there, ma'am.
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
That is a mere belief, NOT a FACT! ::)
So it is your belief that it is a mere belief. Why do you have this belief that 2Corrie's belief is not a fact?
-
Monotheism is a recent development
Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning. False religion and idolatry came after the fall.
That would be the omniscient one, who didn't know where A and E were hiding?
No, yes. It would be the one who knew where A and E were but still asked.
-
Scanning through here, what are angels?
-
Scanning through here, what are angels?
Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.
-
Scanning through here, what are angels?
Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.
What's one of them then when it's in in its supernatural home?
-
So who were these experts? Are you saying you believe everything on every documentary on the telly?
Do you understand the irony of this, bearing in mind you just used an old book of uncertain provenance as evidence of the existence of mythical Abraham.
-
...
Monotheism is a recent development, everyone knows this that's why I said anecdote because I haven't to hand the info foe this, but everyone with half a brain knows this.
Hmm. This must be one of the most blatant argumentum ad populums for some months.
Now, assume I have only 45% of a normal brain. Please supply me with some evidence for your claim. Now you may be correct in what you assert, but it would be good to see some evidence for it.
What do you mean by "recent development"? 2000 years ago? 3000 years ago? The reason I would have no real problem with the first monotheists coming later than the first polytheists is that, like many other evangelicals, I don't see Genesis 1-3 as being an exhaustive, scientific account of man's origins. I'd put Adam and Eve down as possibly the first monotheists.
Abraham? You have proof that he ever existed?
Proof? No. I do have evidence that he existed and so do you. It's in Genesis, for example.
You mentioned the Hebrews first not me, so it is up to you to say where they came from.
Nope. I first mentioned them thus:
You: What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?
Me: Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument.
There is no need to demonstrate where the Hebrews came from for my simple explanation of what additional attributes are needed over and above the Kalam argument to be speaking of a Christian God.
In this case the old chestnuts are the best!!! And it is a very valid point which you are trying to avoid by rolling your eyes.
Is this meant to be a serious point?
You have this habit of agreeing with someone and then denying it. In your previous post you agreed with me, I just followed it on to the obvious conclusion.
In what way?
Argumentum ad populum? This is based on peoples' beliefs not generally known facts in the knowledgeable world. You always resort to these types of tactics when you are losing.
And what evidence would you accept? Some things can't be summed up in one paper but are put together overtime, creating a picture like a mosaic.
Recent development refers to the fact that religion, in the broadest sense, has be going on for 10's of thousands of years, where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.
Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?
"Is this meant to be a serious point?" - Was yours? You made no attempt to answer my point but as I said your linguistically rolled your eyes.
"In what way?" - You typed, "Agreed." to my statement, "If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith." #130. God said 'we' meaning his equals in the matter. And the trinity implies more than one God too.
Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.
You seem to be advocating that the Hebrews just popped into existence out of thin air and began believing in one God from the oft.
-
... And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?
If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?
You can say that. However, it would help to know why you thing an impersonal force would generate a universe and not 2, 3, 4 or a huge number one after the other. Stuff like that.If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.
What's an "impersonal agent"?
[/quote]
We have no idea how many universes have been created. You talk as if we have access to all knowledge? ???
If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.
What's a "personal agent"? I don't understand your question. We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.
-
Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!
I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.
Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.
However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.
I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.
I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?
An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.
I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.
They are an expert in their field. They wouldn't have done it without some justification else they would have made a prat of themselves on prime time TV. I mention in the hope others may have come across such articles and data in this area and as such add to this discussion. I never claimed it was sign and sealed and an absolute truth, did I?
So who were these experts? Are you saying you believe everything on every documentary on the telly?
I don't believe in anything. I made it clear what I had heard and where and made no great claims about its probity but threw it into this arena to see if anyone else had come across such things in their readings etc.
-
God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.
Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself. What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead. However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.
So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?
Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.
So where did the angels come from. No mention of them in Genesis...
No, but they do seem to be mentioned at the start of Job, which is likely to be an older text than Genesis. So what about them not being mentioned in Genesis? As I say, I reckon it is God using the plural of majesty. That is why I said "possibly" the angels as well.
And this then implies that they know right and wrong etc. as God and man does?
Yes, I would think so. Why?
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?
Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)
-
#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.
'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.
The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?
As for the origin of the Hebrews, I have pointed out above why I mentioned the Hebrews and it didn't require knowing their origin.
Did you. I didn't notice any pointing out about why you mentioned the Hebrews above. Care to clarify?
-
Scanning through here, what are angels?
Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.
What's one of them then when it's in in its supernatural home?
It's a supernatural, creating being which is a messenger. Never met one myself though.
Edited: Should read, "created being."
-
So who were these experts? Are you saying you believe everything on every documentary on the telly?
Do you understand the irony of this, bearing in mind you just used an old book of uncertain provenance as evidence of the existence of mythical Abraham.
1) No. Why do you think Abraham was mythical (by which I take it you mean he did not actually exist)?
2) Are you saying Jack Knave was right to trust the TV documentary which he sort of remembers from whenever it was by whomever it was?
-
...
Argumentum ad populum? This is based on peoples' beliefs not generally known facts in the knowledgeable world.
So no good reason for us to accept them (thus far).You always resort to these types of tactics when you are losing.
Ad hominem. Ignored.
And what evidence would you accept? Some things can't be summed up in one paper but are put together overtime, creating a picture like a mosaic.
Waffle.
Recent development refers to the fact that religion, in the broadest sense, has be going on for 10's of thousands of years,
OK with this. where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.
How do you know?
Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?
Evidence doesn't count? You what? I brought up Abraham when I was asked about what the specifically Christian understanding of God is compared to the rather generic deistic/theistic God of the Kalam cosmological argument. That is why. It did not need me to prove Abraham's existence and/or provenance or the origins of the Hebrews any more than me pointing out the particularities of, say, Islamic belief about God means I have to demonstrate where they got them from.
"Is this meant to be a serious point?" - Was yours? You made no attempt to answer my point but as I said your linguistically rolled your eyes.
I like that term. Nice one (seriously).
"In what way?" - You typed, "Agreed." to my statement, "If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith." #130. God said 'we' meaning his equals in the matter. And the trinity implies more than one God too.
Oh do read something other than waffly atheistic stuff. If you disagree with the Trinity at least disagree with what the actual idea means. The Trinity does not imply more than one God. Get a grip, man.
Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.
"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.
For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.
You seem to be advocating that the Hebrews just popped into existence out of thin air and began believing in one God from the oft.
I'm not advocating that.
-
... And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.
How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?
If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?
You can say that. However, it would help to know why you thing an impersonal force would generate a universe and not 2, 3, 4 or a huge number one after the other. Stuff like that.If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.
What's an "impersonal agent"?
We have no idea how many universes have been created.[/quote]If you mean we have no physical evidence of any universes other than our own, then yes. You talk as if we have access to all knowledge? ???
Nope.
If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.
So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?
What's a "personal agent"?
A being endued with personhood. I don't understand your question.
Which one?We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.
Speak for yourself.
-
...
I don't believe in anything. I made it clear what I had heard and where and made no great claims about its probity but threw it into this arena to see if anyone else had come across such things in their readings etc.
OK.
-
...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?
Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)
Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.
So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?
Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).
Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.
-
#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.
'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.
The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?
As for the origin of the Hebrews, I have pointed out above why I mentioned the Hebrews and it didn't require knowing their origin.
Did you. I didn't notice any pointing out about why you mentioned the Hebrews above. Care to clarify?
There might be a bit of misunderstanding going on. I first mentioned the Hebrews in #74 in response to your question of, "What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?" to which I replied, "Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument." Have I missed anything?
Edited: I see #130. Genesis claims that Abraham got his understanding of God from God. Abraham was the ancestor of those who came to be known as Hebrews and Israelites. If that is correct, they did not get their monotheistic ideas from polytheists. Even if it is not correct that Abraham got his info from God, it still leaves the Hebrews getting their understanding of God from their forefathers who were, it seems, monotheistic.
-
where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.
How do you know?
We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.
Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?
Evidence doesn't count?....
Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.
Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.
"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.
For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
-
If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.
So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?
I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.
What's a "personal agent"?
A being endued with personhood.
Wow, that was useful ::) ::) :P ::) ::)
A description provides nothing in the context of our discussion, as it is in reference to a metaphysical proposition. See below.
We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.
Speak for yourself.
We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!
-
...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?
Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)
Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.
So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?
Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).
Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.
So if they have freewill and know right from wrong, and all that, how are they different from humans, including the Christian idea of the soul?
You can speak of us as 'we' because we are the same species, but I wouldn't refer to my dogs and I as 'we'. So on that basis I would find it odd for God to speak about Its angels and Itself as 'we'.
The big scheme of things is echoed in the first paragraph. Where do they stand in the hierarchy in Gods plan. Are they above mankind or a lesser being, and all that?
-
where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.
How do you know?
We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.
Ah, the old argument from silence.
Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?
Evidence doesn't count?....
Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.
Agreed.
Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.
"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.
For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
-
If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.
So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?
I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.
That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Please, don't dodge.
What's a "personal agent"?
A being endued with personhood.
Wow, that was useful ::) ::) :P ::) ::)
A description provides nothing in the context of our discussion, as it is in reference to a metaphysical proposition. See below.
We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.
Speak for yourself.
We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!
Why? This thread is on the misuse of the term God; it is not thread #997 on attempting to demonstrate the existence of God.
-
...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?
Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)
Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.
So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?
Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).
Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.
So if they have freewill and know right from wrong, and all that, how are they different from humans, including the Christian idea of the soul?
There is little in the Scriptures explaining what they are, but more on what they did in certain situations. However, as far as I can tell, they are directly created beings, i.e. there is no mention of mummy and daddy angels. What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?
You can speak of us as 'we' because we are the same species, but I wouldn't refer to my dogs and I as 'we'. So on that basis I would find it odd for God to speak about Its angels and Itself as 'we'.
The big scheme of things is echoed in the first paragraph. Where do they stand in the hierarchy in Gods plan. Are they above mankind or a lesser being, and all that?
I'd be happy to refer to my dog and me as "we" on occasions, e.g. "Darling, we heard you come in the front door and came to meet you." "We" does not imply the same species, just that I and at least one other being did or are doing the same thing. That's all.
-
where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.
How do you know?
We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.
Ah, the old argument from silence.
Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?
Evidence doesn't count?....
Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.
Agreed.
Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.
"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.
For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?
-
I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.
That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Please, don't dodge.The problem you have which is clouding your judgement is that you have assumed that your God is real from the outset of the argument to show that God exists. You fail to see that God is just a mere word which is pliable and nebulous to fit any shape one likes like a fluid (hence your rubbish below). So all I'm proposing is a God which is impersonal. And I mean by God to be any old nebulous crap one likes, such as "Something" analogues to an impersonal non physical force or action.
We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!
Why? This thread is on the misuse of the term God; it is not thread #997 on attempting to demonstrate the existence of God.
One of the misuses is the assumption that the word God is actually a reference to something real and which exists. Hence why you have included the word in your argument, as referenced in the OP, before any definition and clarification has taken place on the word God. So yes, attempts of demonstrations of the existence of God is part, or implied therein, of the remit of the OP.
-
What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?
What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?
-
...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?
You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.
Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.
-
What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?
What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?
I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.
-
...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?
You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.
Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.
I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.
The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.
-
What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?
What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?
I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.
I may have asked if angels had souls like mankind. I see angels isn't one of your scholarly subjects so perhaps we should drop the subject.
-
...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?
You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.
Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.
I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.
OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?
The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.
OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?
-
What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?
What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?
I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.
I may have asked if angels had souls like mankind. I see angels isn't one of your scholarly subjects so perhaps we should drop the subject.
Agreed.
-
I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.
OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?
Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.
The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.
The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.
OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?
So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
-
I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.
OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?
Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.
The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.
The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.
OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?
So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?
I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?
-
I'm talking more in terms of anthropology and psychology here, how man develops. Primitive tribes have gods and spirits and more cultivated and civilised societies of the past gradually moved from fewer Gods to just one God.
OK, so you are not claiming that the monotheism of a formerly animist group is a development from that animism (as in at least partly the cause of that monotheism) any more, say, than me being a former atheist and now a Christian does not mean that my Christian faith is a "development" of atheism?
Well no. That is exactly what I'm saying that animism is the ground from which monotheism has eventually grown, as in the way we have evolve from fish and so on. Though they may not look the same one is a developmental product of the latter.
The explanation for this would be one in psychological terms which, from what you have said in the past of your understanding of psychology and human nature, is why I have not included it here. Essentially it is how our consciousness has become more integrated and less fragmentary; a process every human goes through as they grow up from infancy. So at first we see things as individual, unconnected events and units but gradually as we become more conscious we see the whole integrated picture, or as much as possible. So with the gods and spirits, which are projected into the natural world around us as life forces that animate these various units of nature. But over the eons mankind has seen how our world is connected and so these gods have been melded and reduced in number until we are left with one. Add in a heavy does of intellectual musings and hey presto our religions today.
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.
You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.
The Abraham story is just that, a story, which can be explained in archetypal psychological terms. Many people feel led to some new cause or horizon it's what got us out of the trees to our present modern situation.
OK, that is a positive claim that it is "just a story". Would you care to back that up?
So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?
I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?
Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.
Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.
-
...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.
You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.
It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.
So what do you think a story is? Something not true or factual as an event. And an event can only be true if it is known to be true, all else is just speculation or for our amusement, and we base our lives, or should do so, on what we know to be true from experience. That is the only thing we can be sure of.
"And an event can only be true if it is known to be true..."? That is incorrect. Why on earth do you think it to be the case? That is post-modernism gone mad. Did you mean what you wrote there?
I'd be interested to know if any atheists here, apart from JK, think his claim is correct. Anyone?
Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.
Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.
Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.
-
Whilst we realise the Harry Potter stories are meant to be fiction, not only are they a much better read than the Bible, they are probably more credible, certainly no less, imo!
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
-
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?
-
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?
None. Why do you ask?
-
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?
None. Why do you ask?
Why did you bring up the point then?
-
Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.
So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?
In what way would Hindus not liking the idea that their religion evolved from animism have any bearing on that idea's truth or falsehood?
None. Why do you ask?
Why did you bring up the point then?
I thought they might have some arguments against the suggestion. I wasn't interested what they liked.
You may have not noticed, but I have told Jack Knave that I don't have enough knowledge of Hinduism to continue (sensibly) with any discussion on Hinduism.
-
...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.
You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.
It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.
The evidence for the account is non-existent. All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter. What else, independent of that written account, do you have to back it up? And your claim on it is just an assertion. And how do you know that the intention of the author was for it to be nothing more than a story?
I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.
Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.
Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.
Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.
An event can only be true for a given individual if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.
For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
-
...
Or God revealed himself to Abraham.
You know my reply to that and every other atheists' reply. You don't know that, all you have is a story that is as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars. And you can't prove that God exists, or that anything along those lines is a plausible and verifiable entity.
It is your assertion that it is "as credible as Harry Potter or Star Wars." That is rather silly. Harry Potter and Star Wars are meant to be fiction. The authors never intended them to be understood as anything other than that. You may think that the evidence for the account is insufficient, but you have not given any reason, apart from this mis-comparison, why the account in Genesis about Abraham can't be true.
The evidence for the account is non-existent.
Actually, that is incorrect. There is some evidence in that it seems to fit with our knowledge of that society, is an ancient account itself (as in it was written close enough to perhaps have authentic sources) and the Son of God is recorded as believing it.All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter.
No, that is incorrect. Harry Potter was only intended as fiction. Even if the accounts of Abraham are incorrect, they were not intended as fiction. Keep up. What else, independent of that written account, do you have to back it up? And your claim on it is just an assertion. See above.And how do you know that the intention of the author was for it to be nothing more than a story?
That is the genre it is. It is how it has always been accepted right back to way back when. Do you have any evidence that it should be understood as "just a story"?
I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
Do you mean that I have accepted that I cannot prove the existence of God? Do you think I can prove to you that I exist?
Yes I did mean that. Anything else is based on trust and that often implies some level of loyalty and confirmation bias. This is more associated with culture and social acceptance than true facts.
Some event may be true independent of someone's personal verification but for them they can never know for sure (100%) that that event actual took place, even if it took place in their life time. Once we get into events that occurred before we were born, especially before things like film and photography, then we are dealing totally with stories and very suspect may be's.
Yes, I understand some of the problems with knowing something is true or even coming to the conclusion that something is probably true, but that is not what you claimed above (and which you confirmed you actually meant). You said that an event can only be true if it is known to be true. That would mean that our present knowledge makes something happen in the past.
Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.
An event can only be true for a given individual
"True for an individual" is postmodernist claptrap. Something is either true, not true or partly true. "True for me" people need their brains tested.if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.
Complete cobblers. You are saying here that you only know stuff to be true which you yourself have witnessed. Utter tosh. You don't live your life that way so please don't come up with such rubbish.For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.
Largely incorrect. Firstly, Christians do use their brains and do question why the bible says stuff. It is part of ensuring we understand it correctly. Secondly, we don't just base our morality on a book, but rather on what the Son of God says. If Jesus truly is the Son of God and the NT accounts of what he said and did are correct, then that is our authority. We have not just picked up a book and thought "I'll base my life on this book even though I don't know why it says stuff". We are guided above all by a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If he truly is that then we can trust him.
-
There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than human like the rest of us. Even if he did say the things he is quoted as saying it still doesn't mean they were true, just rather arrogant!
If the guy was some sort of deity why wasn't it obvious to all, which clearly it wasn't, not even his own family? ::)
-
There is no evidence Jesus was anymore than human like the rest of us. Even if he did say the things he is quoted as saying it still doesn't mean they were true, just rather arrogant!
If the guy was some sort of deity why wasn't it obvious to all, which clearly it wasn't, not even his own family? ::)
His brother, James became head of the early Church, in case you didn't
know, and you rarely know any facts.
Why is it arrogant to ask people to love and forgive? I know you won't answer, because you never debate, you merely assert.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
-
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
That's rather the point, isn't it. Yes, it does mean 'we have no evidence that it's anything more than just a story', and until and unless we do it's perfectly fair to say 'it's just a story', to take what's meaningful from it as a lesson, as we do with any literature or decent story, and move on.
O.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?
-
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
That's rather the point, isn't it. Yes, it does mean 'we have no evidence that it's anything more than just a story', and until and unless we do it's perfectly fair to say 'it's just a story', to take what's meaningful from it as a lesson, as we do with any literature or decent story, and move on.
O.
So you would not expect any direct evidence then.
What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?
Personally, I am not fussed on this. I can see no reason to bring up Abraham as evidence that God exists and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and so on. I work the other direction. If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me. The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?
So your evidence for Abraham is the universe?
-
If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me. The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.
If a god exists, if that is then the Christian god, if that god had a 'son' and was actually Jesus, if that god and his son could be trusted and if that son actually believed Abraham existed and could be trusted then it be good enough for me.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?
So your evidence for Abraham is the universe?
No. Please read my previous posts.
-
So you would not expect any direct evidence then.
Why not?
What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?
So you're argument then is solipsism? Scientific explanations are only ever provisional, logical derivations are only what they are because they are necessarily true - we have known limitations on the information we have, and we assess evidence against those limitations.
I work the other direction. If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me. The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.
Whether Jesus believed Abraham existed or not is largely irrelevant unless Jesus were the Son of God, and for that there is no credible evidence.
O.
-
So you would not expect any direct evidence then.
Why not?
Sorry, I thought that was what you were saying. What sort of evidence do you think we should expect if Abraham existed?
What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?
So you're argument then is solipsism?
No, why do you think that?Scientific explanations are only ever provisional, logical derivations are only what they are because they are necessarily true - we have known limitations on the information we have, and we assess evidence against those limitations.
And?
I work the other direction. If the Son of God really did believe that Abraham existed then that's good enough for me. The crux there then is whether Jesus was and is the Son of God and whether he did believe Abraham existed.
Whether Jesus believed Abraham existed or not is largely irrelevant unless Jesus were the Son of God, and for that there is no credible evidence.
O.
And if Jesus is/were the Son of God and said that Abraham existed, would that count? If not, why not, please?
-
Sorry, I thought that was what you were saying. What sort of evidence do you think we should expect if Abraham existed?
I've no idea, to be honest. I've been asked 'what sort of evidence would I accept of god, and I struggle there, it's just beyond my capacity to imagine something that's definitively only possible through god.
What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?
So you're argument then is solipsism?
No, why do you think that?
Well we could apply that argument to any 'evidence' - how do we know that's true, how do we know that we know, how do we know that we know that we know...
Whether Jesus believed Abraham existed or not is largely irrelevant unless Jesus were the Son of God, and for that there is no credible evidence.
And if Jesus is/were the Son of God and said that Abraham existed, would that count? If not, why not, please?
If it could be shown that Jesus was the Son of God everything would change.
O.
-
Sorry, I thought that was what you were saying. What sort of evidence do you think we should expect if Abraham existed?
I've no idea, to be honest. I've been asked 'what sort of evidence would I accept of god, and I struggle there, it's just beyond my capacity to imagine something that's definitively only possible through god.
But here we are talking about evidence evidence for Abraham, aren't we? At least I am. :)
What if you had something which was evidence? Would you then ask what evidence is there that that evidence is true?
So you're argument then is solipsism?
No, why do you think that?
Well we could apply that argument to any 'evidence' - how do we know that's true, how do we know that we know, how do we know that we know that we know...
Agreed.
Whether Jesus believed Abraham existed or not is largely irrelevant unless Jesus were the Son of God, and for that there is no credible evidence.
And if Jesus is/were the Son of God and said that Abraham existed, would that count? If not, why not, please?
If it could be shown that Jesus was the Son of God everything would change.
O.
Thanks. I agree. It hinges on that.
Anyway, must toddle.
-
So just the small matter of showing that he was the son of god.
Why would anyone assume this was true, until there was good evidence for it.
And so it goes round.
-
But here we are talking about evidence evidence for Abraham, aren't we? At least I am. :)
No, you're talking about claims of Abraham, not evidence for Abraham.
Anyway, must toddle.
Laters :)
O.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that
It's self evident, Alan. Firstly, it definitely is a story. Secondly, there is no archaeological evidence or other documentary evidence in support of it and this makes it just a story.
What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Independent documentary evidence would be useful, but then you already knew that. You are just asking to distract from the fact that you can't produce any evidence that we should treat this story as history.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?
How is the whole Universe evidence that the Abraham story is anything more than just a story? In your answer consider the fact that this Universe creating god saw no benefit in creating any more evidence that Abraham was the father of his chosen people than that Mohammed is his final prophet.
-
So just the small matter of showing that he was the son of god.
Why would anyone assume this was true, until there was good evidence for it.
No-one in their right mind, unless God, say, gave some separate witness which did not rely on external evidence.
And so it goes round.
Yes, agreed. To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. However, in order to not get into yet another discussion about whether God exists and/or who Jesus was, I'll leave the last word to you bearing in mind all I was saying was that if Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to what he said, then we ought to believe what he said about Abraham (and anything else).
Over to you for the last word.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that
It's self evident, Alan. Firstly, it definitely is a story. Secondly, there is no archaeological evidence or other documentary evidence in support of it and this makes it just a story.
Incorrect. If the Son of God said Abraham existed and we have access to the Son of God saying that then I would suggest we do not need archaeological evidence or any other documentary evidence.
What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Independent documentary evidence would be useful, but then you already knew that. You are just asking to distract from the fact that you can't produce any evidence that we should treat this story as history.
Apart from the Son of God saying Abraham existed.
Funny how we have got onto whether Jesus was the Son of God again when we were just discussing animism and polytheism.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
How about creating a whole universe? Can you do that?
How is the whole Universe evidence that the Abraham story is anything more than just a story?
It isn't. I didn't claim that. I was responding to what I thought jakswan was saying about, I think, God not being able to create a DVD or modern electronics, which we had somehow go onto when discussing animism and polytheism.In your answer consider the fact that this Universe creating god saw no benefit in creating any more evidence that Abraham was the father of his chosen people than that Mohammed is his final prophet.
In your opinion. If Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to what he said about Abraham existing then that is surely sufficient.
-
Yes, agreed. To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd say there's more chance of you supporting Ipswich and recognising that there's none.
However, in order to not get into yet another discussion about whether God exists...
From my standpoint (and dare I say from those of the same standpoint), what other discussion is there to be had? What's the point of attempting to jump the 6th hurdle when we aren't even over the 1st? To do so is just angels and pin heads.
-
To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd love to do that. Trouble is that it is not true.
-
Incorrect. If the Son of God said Abraham existed and we have access to the Son of God saying that then I would suggest we do not need archaeological evidence or any other documentary evidence.
Aren't you even the least bit ashamed of that pathetic piece of nonsense?
Apart from the Son of God saying Abraham existed.
Jesus had no better idea of whether Abraham existed than anybody else at the time. Your reliance on him being the Son of God is just laughable bollocks.
Funny how we have got onto whether Jesus was the Son of God again when we were just discussing animism and po
No, you brought it up because you don't have any evidence for your point of view. The only funny thing is that you think your assertion carries any evidential weight.
-
How is the whole Universe evidence that the Abraham story is anything more than just a story?
It isn't. I didn't claim that.
Actually, read the conversation again, because it clearly shows you did.
I was responding to what I thought jakswan was saying about, I think, God not being able to create a DVD
You seem to have a remarkable ability to take things out of context. You asked Jakswan what evidence of Abraham we could expect and he responded by suggesting that God could have created a DVD meaning (as was obvious to all except you) a DVD of evidence.
In your answer consider the fact that this Universe creating god saw no benefit in creating any more evidence that Abraham was the father of his chosen people than that Mohammed is his final prophet.
In your opinion. If Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to what he said about Abraham existing then that is surely sufficient.
If if if if if if if if
Can't you see the problem with your stupid if?
If Peter the Pixie is the Mayor of the planet Wibble then Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
Conclusion Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
-
...However, in order to not get into yet another discussion about whether God exists...
From my standpoint (and dare I say from those of the same standpoint), what other discussion is there to be had? What's the point of attempting to jump the 6th hurdle when we aren't even over the 1st? To do so is just angels and pin heads.
I'm happy to discuss whether God exists, but don't want to do it on every thread I take part in. For one thing, since I am often in conversation with 4 or 5 people of a very different opinion to me on most threads and if I am taking part in 6 threads at any one time (which is about average), I find it hard to keep track of who says what when, including myself.
-
To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd love to do that. Trouble is that it is not true.
In your opinion it is not true; in my opinion it is true.
Your turn.
-
Incorrect. If the Son of God said Abraham existed and we have access to the Son of God saying that then I would suggest we do not need archaeological evidence or any other documentary evidence.
Aren't you even the least bit ashamed of that pathetic piece of nonsense?
I would be if it was, but it isn't, so I'm not.Apart from the Son of God saying Abraham existed.
Jesus had no better idea of whether Abraham existed than anybody else at the time. Your reliance on him being the Son of God is just laughable bollocks.
If he was the Son of God then he would not be a reliable guide? Really?
Funny how we have got onto whether Jesus was the Son of God again when we were just discussing animism and po
No, you brought it up because you don't have any evidence for your point of view.
IIRC, I qualified my statement saying that if Jesus is the Son of God and we had access to what he has said then that should be sufficient for us. The only funny thing is that you think your assertion carries any evidential weight.
Actually, my statement is not evidence for Abraham existing. What would carry evidential weight would be if Jesus is the Son of God.
-
How is the whole Universe evidence that the Abraham story is anything more than just a story?
It isn't. I didn't claim that.
Actually, read the conversation again, because it clearly shows you did.
I was responding to what I thought jakswan was saying about, I think, God not being able to create a DVD
You seem to have a remarkable ability to take things out of context. You asked Jakswan what evidence of Abraham we could expect and he responded by suggesting that God could have created a DVD meaning (as was obvious to all except you) a DVD of evidence.
In your answer consider the fact that this Universe creating god saw no benefit in creating any more evidence that Abraham was the father of his chosen people than that Mohammed is his final prophet.
In your opinion. If Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to what he said about Abraham existing then that is surely sufficient.
If if if if if if if if
Can't you see the problem with your stupid if?
If Peter the Pixie is the Mayor of the planet Wibble then Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
Conclusion Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
Here is what was said:
Alien's reply to jakswan's claim that the stuff about Abraham in the bible is just a story, "It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
A DVD, god couldn't magic one up? Water into wine easy, modern electronics, too tricky!
Are you seriously suggesting, as jakswan seemed to be suggesting, that we could reasonably expect to have a DVD from the time of Abraham as evidence that Abraham existed?
Now, if God does exist then he would clearly be able to create a DVD, him having created the universe and all that, which was my point, probably badly put. I've looked back at what jakswan wrote and he really does seem to be suggesting that a DVD actually from the time of Abraham would be something we could reasonably expect. If so then, to be honest, I've been thrown by the stupidity of the statement.
And on my "stupid 'if'", why is it stupid to say that Jesus is the Son of God? You are free to disagree with my conclusion, but is it stupid? Maybe it is, but I don't think so. If you want to take the mick, it's up to you. Are you saying that only stupid people come to that conclusion?
-
How is the whole Universe evidence that the Abraham story is anything more than just a story?
It isn't. I didn't claim that.
Actually, read the conversation again, because it clearly shows you did.
I was responding to what I thought jakswan was saying about, I think, God not being able to create a DVD
You seem to have a remarkable ability to take things out of context. You asked Jakswan what evidence of Abraham we could expect and he responded by suggesting that God could have created a DVD meaning (as was obvious to all except you) a DVD of evidence.
In your answer consider the fact that this Universe creating god saw no benefit in creating any more evidence that Abraham was the father of his chosen people than that Mohammed is his final prophet.
In your opinion. If Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to what he said about Abraham existing then that is surely sufficient.
If if if if if if if if
Can't you see the problem with your stupid if?
If Peter the Pixie is the Mayor of the planet Wibble then Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
Conclusion Abraham was a used car salesman from Epping.
No need to be insulting.
-
To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd love to do that. Trouble is that it is not true.
In your opinion it is not true; in my opinion it is true.
Your turn.
In the opinion of every rational person on the planet. You simply do not have the evidence. When you are asked to produce it, we get some nonsense about some characters in a story. If there was good evidence that Jesus is the son of God, I'd be a believer.
-
Are you seriously suggesting, as jakswan seemed to be suggesting, that we could reasonably expect to have a DVD from the time of Abraham as evidence that Abraham existed?
Yes we could, if your god was real. It's you who asserts your god is real without evidence, not us.
And on my "stupid 'if'", why is it stupid to say that Jesus is the Son of God?
That is not what I said is stupid in this instance. What is stupid is your construction
If A then B
Therefore B
which is obviously fallacious if you haven't established the truth of A.
Maybe it is, but I don't think so. If you want to take the mick, it's up to you. Are you saying that only stupid people come to that conclusion?
I'm taking the mick in retaliation for your micky taking. Your last few posts have been a mix of obviously fallacious logic, misrepresenting what others have said and deliberately ignoring context in order to avoid confronting arguments.
-
To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd love to do that. Trouble is that it is not true.
In your opinion it is not true; in my opinion it is true.
Your turn.
In the opinion of every rational person on the planet. You simply do not have the evidence. When you are asked to produce it, we get some nonsense about some characters in a story. If there was good evidence that Jesus is the son of God, I'd be a believer.
Slight arrogance, speaking for "every rational person on the planet."
-
To stop it going round it is best to finally recognise that there is good evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.
I'd love to do that. Trouble is that it is not true.
In your opinion it is not true; in my opinion it is true.
Your turn.
In the opinion of every rational person on the planet.
As defined by whom? You? You simply do not have the evidence.
In your opinion. When you are asked to produce it, we get some nonsense about some characters in a story. If there was good evidence that Jesus is the son of God, I'd be a believer.
So you claim.
-
Are you seriously suggesting, as jakswan seemed to be suggesting, that we could reasonably expect to have a DVD from the time of Abraham as evidence that Abraham existed?
Yes we could, if your god was real. It's you who asserts your god is real without evidence, not us.
You claim that I have not provided (sufficient) evidence. Who decides whether your claim is correct? You?
And on my "stupid 'if'", why is it stupid to say that Jesus is the Son of God?
That is not what I said is stupid in this instance. What is stupid is your construction
If A then B
Therefore B
which is obviously fallacious if you haven't established the truth of A.
Where have I claimed that?
Maybe it is, but I don't think so. If you want to take the mick, it's up to you. Are you saying that only stupid people come to that conclusion?
I'm taking the mick in retaliation for your micky taking. Your last few posts have been a mix of obviously fallacious logic, misrepresenting what others have said and deliberately ignoring context in order to avoid confronting arguments.
I have claimed that if Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to him saying that Abraham existed then that is sufficient for us to believe correctly that Abraham existed. How is that "fallacious logic"?
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not. It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.
-
Why do you think Abraham was mythical
It's just a story written at some point in the 1st millennium BCE with no evidence that its sources, if any, go back to the time when Abraham is supposed to live.
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not.
Of course we don't. If we can't reasonably expect any direct evidence and have none then we should say we have no evidence. Why your bias towards your own position? It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.
Unless the Son of God tells us that Abraham did exist.
-
The evidence for the account is non-existent.
Actually, that is incorrect. There is some evidence in that it seems to fit with our knowledge of that society, is an ancient account itself (as in it was written close enough to perhaps have authentic sources) and the Son of God is recorded as believing it.
Generalities, of fitting with what society was like then doesn't prove anything, as it doesn't prove a Hollywood film to be an account of fact if it correctly has how society was in its film.
All you have is a story, just like Harry Potter.
No, that is incorrect. Harry Potter was only intended as fiction. Even if the accounts of Abraham are incorrect, they were not intended as fiction. Keep up.
All that is besides the point, Alan.
I see I got no to claim that you can't prove the existence of your God.
Do you mean that I have accepted that I cannot prove the existence of God? Do you think I can prove to you that I exist?
Of course it is possible for you to prove to me that you exist, we could meet up, for example. We are conversing so there must be something behind all those posts from Alien.
But you can not prove that God exists, which is why you didn't answer me. And everything you propose about your faith etc. hinges on that explanation that can't ever be given.
Ok let me put it this way, though I did clarify this point above.
An event can only be true for a given individual
"True for an individual" is postmodernist claptrap. Something is either true, not true or partly true. "True for me" people need their brains tested.
What you are suggesting is "Something" that is outside the human framework that can experience events and judge them to true. Even if such an agent existed it wouldn't help you to make the same judgement if you hadn't observed that event yourself. All you would have would be an assertion from that "Something" and taking what It had said on trust.
Oh, by the way my brain is fine.
if it is known to be true by that individual by having first hand experience of that event i.e. an eye witness.
Complete cobblers. You are saying here that you only know stuff to be true which you yourself have witnessed. Utter tosh. You don't live your life that way so please don't come up with such rubbish.
I do live my life that way, but as I can't know everything I am fully aware that there are things I have to take on trust and can't categorically assert that these are true. However, when it comes to how I live my life, and my fundamental position on my person position and morals, then living by what I know is even more of an imperative so I don't follow some totally unfounded ideological nonsense.
Your approach seems to be just pick anything that takes your fancy regardless of its basis in reality.
For someone to conduct their lives by some moral rules and fundamental principles they have to know first hand that those aspects are true from personal experience. I raise this because people are basing their lives on a book written 2000 years ago, and more, and haven't a hope in hell of knowing if it is correct or not. In the end it is what we know to be true and factual personally that can only guide our lives. Taking on whole heartily some ancient system they have no way of validating is foolishness.
Largely incorrect. Firstly, Christians do use their brains and do question why the bible says stuff. It is part of ensuring we understand it correctly.
And on what basis, what criterion, do they question what is said in the Bible. That know how can only come from personal experience or what one's culture has inculcated into their lives.
Secondly, we don't just base our morality on a book, but rather on what the Son of God says.
Same difference. None of you actually know for sure if JC ever lived and walked on this planet.
If Jesus truly is the Son of God and the NT accounts of what he said and did are correct, then that is our authority.
Big IF!!! Again on what basis is all this known to be true?
We have not just picked up a book and thought "I'll base my life on this book even though I don't know why it says stuff". We are guided above all by a person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If he truly is that then we can trust him.
Talk about cobblers!!!
This implies you have actually met JC in the flesh and had a chat with him. Even if this insane notion was true on what basis would you judge what he said was actually true? You can't, it is as you say trust and trust is flawed because you don't know that what you have trusted in is true because you haven't 'seen' it personally for yourself. And of course, you haven't actually met JC, except only in your fanciful mind.
-
"It's just a story"? Do you have evidence for that or do you just mean "We have no direct evidence that it is anything more than just a story"? What sort of evidence could we reasonably expect to have?
Your last sentence says it all. If we can't possibly have any firm evidence that shows it is more than just a story we have to take it as such, regardless of whether it is fact or not.
Of course we don't. If we can't reasonably expect any direct evidence and have none then we should say we have no evidence. Why your bias towards your own position??[/quote]
Because relative to our position at this point in history and our experience it is just a story. We can make no other judgement on it. Even if it was an event in history it makes no odds to us now and so because of this it is just a story to us. To us, here and now, its value to us is only as a story.
It starts to get ridiculous when people take things like this as being some kind of fact and then base their fundamental behaviour, morals and life choices, and so on, on these items.
Unless the Son of God tells us that Abraham did exist.
But Alan there you go again with these absurd assertions. Even if I met this Son of God of yours why would I believe or trust what he had to say? So is this Son of God of yours going to met us all and tell us, or is this some deluded fantasy of yours?
As this isn't going to happen this can't help you in your argument and it leaves all your Bible as a collection of stories relative to us today.
-
In the opinion of every rational person on the planet.
As defined by whom? You?
Try the OED.
Even the rational Christians would disagree with you. They prefer not to argue the historical evidence but they believe by faith.
You simply do not have the evidence.
In your opinion.
When one's opinion is backed up by the fact that none of you can find this alleged evidence, it becomes more than an opinion.
When you are asked to produce it, we get some nonsense about some characters in a story. If there was good evidence that Jesus is the son of God, I'd be a believer.
So you claim.
Yes I do claim. I'm open minded in that respect. However, I'm pretty confident that you'll never come up with any evidence and I'm pretty confident that, if there is a god, it's not the Christian one.
-
That is not what I said is stupid in this instance. What is stupid is your construction
If A then B
Therefore B
which is obviously fallacious if you haven't established the truth of A.
Where have I claimed that?
Reply #236 is a recent example.
I have claimed that if Jesus is the Son of God and we have access to him saying that Abraham existed then that is sufficient for us to believe correctly that Abraham existed. How is that "fallacious logic"?
Because any construction "If A then B", carries no information if A is not known to be true. Furthermore, if A is known to be false, then anything may follow.
If the moon is made of green cheese then I am the Pope.
The above is a true statement. However, it is invalid logic to use it to infer that I am the Pope. All of your arguments that begin "if Jesus is the son of god..." are meaningless because you haven't established the truth of "Jesus is the son of God". Those arguments are just a waste of key strokes.