Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on December 29, 2016, 09:15:05 AM
-
deleted
-
Define your term 'suffering', floo.
-
Define your term 'suffering', floo.
May I provide my definition?
Look around our world and watch the news - you'll see plenty of examples of human suffering. From natural disasters to those inflicted by other humans - it's everywhere.
All this suffering and yet no sign of this god who we are told is positively bursting with love for his creation.
-
May I provide my definition?
Look around our world and watch the news - you'll see plenty of examples of human suffering. From natural disasters to those inflicted by other humans - it's everywhere.
All this suffering and yet no sign of this god who we are told is positively bursting with love for his creation.
Given your definition, I'd say that there are many signs of God in those situations.
Committed workers, motivated by faith, giving humanitarian and medical aid in situations of the greatest danger.
Do you expect God to stop the natural disasters?
Why?
Wouldn't that contravene way nature works - and the way the planet keeps on working?
Or stop the wars?
Why?
Wouldn't that impinge on the whole free will thing again - which I'm not dipping my toes in on this thread ?
-
If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world. If god is omnipotent, as is claimed by believers, it must have known exactly what would happen when it invented badness as well as goodness. That being the case why did god want humans to suffer, does it get a perverted thrill when observing human distress?
Good to see yet another of your repeat threads, Floo. I appreciate tyhat you don't like some of the responses you get every other time you run the subject past us.
-
Good to see yet another of your repeat threads, Floo. I appreciate tyhat you don't like some of the responses you get every other time you run the subject past us.
To which you cannot given any credible answer.
-
Given your definition, I'd say that there are many signs of God in those situations.
But no sign whatever of a god willing and able to prevent the causes of suffering in the first place. I don't mean mopping up after the fact, but not allowing it to occur to begin with.
Committed workers, motivated by faith, giving humanitarian and medical aid in situations of the greatest danger.
Those are human beings doing human things out of our natural and inherent empathy, founded ultimately on a theory of mind. No gods involved.
The more important question is, which is the better scenario: to give help, aid, succour and comfort to someone after a terrible experience - or to prevent the terrible experience occurring at all in the first instance, so that the tea and sympathy are superfluous?
Do you expect God to stop the natural disasters?
Why?
The god of traditional monotheism is an omnimax god - all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good. Such a god would:
(a) be aware of suffering (all knowing);
(b) would wish/desire to prevent suffering (all good);
(c) would know how to be able to prevent suffering (all knowing);
(d) would actually prevent suffering (as per the properties of being all good and all powerful).
Yet this is not what we see.
Of course you may not believe in a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and entirely good. Hope for example is notoriously slippery, slimy and evasive about the attributes of the deity he purports to believe in. Start to chip away at any one (at least) of those attributes and that opens up a different kind of conversation altogether, which is probably why he won't go there.
Wouldn't that contravene way nature works - and the way the planet keeps on working?
Or stop the wars?
Why?
No. If you believe in a god who is the designer/creator/author of nature in the first instance, nature can be whatever that entity desires it to be. Paradoxically enough, the suggestion that these actions would contravene the known workings of nature holds only from the viewpoint of an atheist, not a theist.
Wouldn't that impinge on the whole free will thing again - which I'm not dipping my toes in on this thread ?
Free will is something which has never been demonstrated to exist, and I'd say based on recent developments in neuroscience is looking increasingly untenable.
Here's a short and simple, fairly well known internet image that quickly summarises much of the preceding:
http://iwastesomuchtime.com/73685
-
If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world. If god is omnipotent, as is claimed by believers, it must have known exactly what would happen when it invented badness as well as goodness. That being the case why did god want humans to suffer, does it get a perverted thrill when observing human distress?
Yes, God knew exactly what would happen. Yes, he knew Adam would sin bringing suffering and death into creation. In an Orthodox hymn we say "Glory to God for all things". Do you feel sufficiently scandalised now?
-
Yes, God knew exactly what would happen. Yes, he knew Adam would sin bringing suffering and death into creation. In an Orthodox hymn we say "Glory to God for all things". Do you feel sufficiently scandalised now?
Only by the fact that people who presumably can dress themselves, can tie their own shoelaces and are allowed to use sharp implements unsupervised can believe such tosh.
-
Yes, God knew exactly what would happen. Yes, he knew Adam would sin bringing suffering and death into creation. In an Orthodox hymn we say "Glory to God for all things". Do you feel sufficiently scandalised now?
If god is responsible it is a psycho, as I have said many times previously!
-
If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world. If god is omnipotent, as is claimed by believers, it must have known exactly what would happen when it invented badness as well as goodness. That being the case why did god want humans to suffer, does it get a perverted thrill when observing human distress?
But you are always questioning the existence of God Floo, e.g.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13124.msg653326#msg653326
It is highly unlikely the god of the Bible, who reads like a bad fairy tale, had anything to do with creating the universe!
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13093.msg652293#msg652293
I too have said many times, there is no evidence to support the existence of any god, you haven't come up with any. Until there is definitive proof, the human imagination has to be a strong contender for their creation.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13001.msg652183#msg652183
You have not one shred of evidence to prove a god exists, let alone it wrote the Bible as you claim!
Therefore, where's your evidence for this claim?
If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world.
-
But you are always questioning the existence of God Floo, e.g.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13124.msg653326#msg653326
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13093.msg652293#msg652293
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13001.msg652183#msg652183
Therefore, where's your evidence for this claim?
It isn't a claim - it's a question. It starts with "If ..." so is a conditional statement ("If X, then Y" - where, I might add, Floo doesn't even recognise the validity of X any more than I do, although you're supposed to).
Knock off the first word - then it's a claim.
-
But you are always questioning the existence of God Floo, e.g.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13124.msg653326#msg653326
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13093.msg652293#msg652293
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13001.msg652183#msg652183
Therefore, where's your evidence for this claim?
I haven't made any claims I am asking questions about god, for which no one can provide any verifiable evidence.
-
To which you cannot given any credible answer.
Yet, that is yopur opinion - and that of some others here. There are many who - without being believers - regard them as credible. Therefore that's your look-out, not mine.
-
If god is responsible it is a psycho, as I have said many times previously!
We all know what you think, Floo. ::)
-
But no sign whatever of a god willing and able to prevent the causes of suffering in the first place. I don't mean mopping up after the fact, but not allowing it to occur to begin with.
Well, that would have required God to have creatyed us all as robots, rather than human beings with freedom to choose. Is that what you would have preferred (by the way, we've been over this multiple times since I've been a member of the board, and neither you nor anyone else has managed to answer that question in a way that would allow God to have acted in any other way than he did 'in the first place'. It would also have required God to craete a planet that isn't dynamic, and therefore a planet that would necessarily fail to support life.
Those are human beings doing human things out of our natural and inherent empathy, founded ultimately on a theory of mind. No gods involved.
But for many of us, our very humanity is predicated on the existence of a loving and caring God; not simply on a 'theory of mind'. Seems to me that you are effectively replacing one theory with another.
The more important question is, which is the better scenario: to give help, aid, succour and comfort to someone after a terrible experience - or to prevent the terrible experience occurring at all in the first instance, so that the tea and sympathy are superfluous?The god of traditional monotheism is an omnimax god - all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good. Such a god would:
(a) be aware of suffering (all knowing);
(b) would wish/desire to prevent suffering (all good);
(c) would know how to be able to prevent suffering (all knowing);
(d) would actually prevent suffering (as per the properties of being all good and all powerful).
See my response to your first point.
Yet this is not what we see.
So giving his human creation the ability to think and choose their own future isn't 'good'? Sorry, I doubt whether you would accept that. Of course God knew that these would be the consequences of his creative action - he prefers to allow us to suffer the consequences of our choices (something that Floo is uber-hot on, by the way) than to make us as robots.
Of course you may not believe in a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and entirely good. Hope for example is notoriously slippery, slimy and evasive about the attributes of the deity he purports to believe in.
What a joke; Shakes. Just because you can't (or choose not to) understand the complexity of God, you have to make out that believers who try to understand that complexity but don't fully understand it are automatically slippery, etc. I suppose one would have to define all believers in this way, since none of us fully understand that complexity, not do we have the huge vocabulary that would needed to express it in its totality.
Start to chip away at any one (at least) of those attributes and that opens up a different kind of conversation altogether, which is probably why he won't go there.
Not really, Shakes. I have simply learnt that if I was express it in as best a way I can, you would simply not understand it, and why repeaqt something that others don't understand - ad infinitum.?
No. If you believe in a god who is the designer/creator/author of nature in the first instance, nature can be whatever that entity desires it to be. Paradoxically enough, the suggestion that these actions would contravene the known workings of nature holds only from the viewpoint of an atheist, not a theist.Free will is something which has never been demonstrated to exist, and I'd say based on recent developments in neuroscience is looking increasingly untenable.
I'd disagree with this highglighted statement, Shakes, and would also suggest that the subsequent comment has little or no substance since (neuro)science doesn't deal in the areas that freewill acts in - namely the spiritual realm.
Here's a short and simple, fairly well known internet image that quickly summarises much of the preceding:
http://iwastesomuchtime.com/73685
It sums it up very well, Shakes - the speaker would clearly prefer a world of robots.
-
Only by the fact that people who presumably can dress themselves, can tie their own shoelaces and are allowed to use sharp implements unsupervised can believe such tosh.
Well, its either that or a world of mindless robots.
-
If god is responsible it is a psycho, as I have said many times previously!
And your 'said so many times' has been challenged and shown to be lacking in validity 'many times before', Floo.
-
It isn't a claim - it's a question. It starts with "If ..." so is a conditional statement ("If X, then Y" - where, I might add, Floo doesn't even recognise the validity of X any more than I do, although you're supposed to).
Knock off the first word - then it's a claim.
Sorry, its a claim hidden in a question, and not very well hidden. Its a common linguistic format.
-
And your 'said so many times' has been challenged and shown to be lacking in validity 'many times before', Floo.
I am going by what is said about god in the Bible, which does give the impression it is a psycho, if it exists.
When have you verified any of your claims?
-
Well, that would have required God to have creatyed us all as robots, rather than human beings with freedom to choose. Is that what you would have preferred (by the way, we've been over this multiple times since I've been a member of the board, and neither you nor anyone else has managed to answer that question in a way that would allow God to have acted in any other way than he did 'in the first place'. It would also have required God to craete a planet that isn't dynamic, and therefore a planet that would necessarily fail to support life.
This desperate tripe is simply making a virtue out of necessity, i.e. retrofitting the notion of a god onto the planet as it is because you have to shore up the idea on no grounds whatever. A god both all-knowing and all-powerful would by definition know and be able to create a planet which is both "dynamic" yet does not create suffering. This stems from the very meanings of the terms all-powerful and all-knowing - which is to say, if you think otherwise, you're demonstrating that you don't actually understand what those terms mean. Is this the sort of god you claim to believe in or not?
But for many of us, our very humanity is predicated on the existence of a loving and caring God; not simply on a 'theory of mind'. Seems to me that you are effectively replacing one theory with another.
How tragic.
And, by the way, a god is a hypothesis at the outside; theory of mind is supported by abundant evidence from sundry disciplines but the most important of them being psychology, ethology and primatology.
So giving his human creation the ability to think and choose their own future isn't 'good'? Sorry, I doubt whether you would accept that. Of course God knew that these would be the consequences of his creative action - he prefers to allow us to suffer the consequences of our choices (something that Floo is uber-hot on, by the way) than to make us as robots.
That's self-suffering based on one's own choices/actions. Where does the totally unjustified suffering of innocent parties come into this picture of yours? A raped child suffers on account of the actions of another, and has nothing to do with their own choices. Explain.
What a joke; Shakes. Just because you can't (or choose not to) understand the complexity of God, you have to make out that believers who try to understand that complexity but don't fully understand it are automatically slippery, etc.
I am stating as a matter of fact that you are slimy, slippery and evasive when it comes to answering questions about what you take to be the attributes of the god you allege that you believe in.
Although I've posed the question before many, many times (indeed, I've just done so) and you have ignored it every time, I shall do so here once again for you to ignore yet again (which, of course, you will):
Is the god that you purport to believe in all-knowing, all-powerful (either literally so, taken at face value meaning able to do absolutely anything, or all-powerful within the limits of logic) and all good?
Not really, Shakes. I have simply learnt that if I was express it in as best a way I can, you would simply not understand it, and why repeaqt something that others don't understand - ad infinitum.?
How do you know that you understand it? Perhaps if you explain something to others that you claim to understand but they can't understand it, actually it's your "understanding" which is deficient.
I'd disagree with this highglighted statement, Shakes
Couldn't give two shiny ones about your disagreement. If, as are you implying, you think that free will has been shown to exist, provide the evidence from the credible and reputable sources where this has allegedly taken place.
Not that you will, obvs.
and would also suggest that the subsequent comment has little or no substance since (neuro)science doesn't deal in the areas that freewill acts in - namely the spiritual realm.
Something else never demonstrated to exist in itself, of course.
-
Well, its either that or a world of mindless robots.
Big fan of C. S. Lewis, are we?
He was tremendously fond of quickly reaching for the false dichotomy/excluded middle as well.
-
Doesn't this thread so very easily link in with mine on 'Christian Mythology' in the Bible ?????
Nick
-
I knew my three children would face suffering in their lives before bringing them into the world. Does that make me a psycho?
-
I knew my three children would face suffering in their lives before bringing them into the world. Does that make me a psycho?
Psycho? No. Though there are quite a few philosophers who would very seriously question your moral sense, for sure. David Benatar, for example.
-
a) be aware of suffering (all knowing);
(b) would wish/desire to prevent suffering (all good);
(c) would know how to be able to prevent suffering (all knowing);
(d) would actually prevent suffering (as per the properties of being all good and all powerful).
Not convinced about 'b', this smacks of a false premise.
The God I know, wants that all should be saved, that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and repent.
-
Not convinced about 'b', this smacks of a false premise.
I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with the concept of goodness, therefore. My definition of the word certainly includes the desire - but not, alas, the ability which presumably you think that your god, if it existed, would have - to prevent suffering; not just to make it all better after the event, but to forestall it before it occurs. The attributes ascribed to the traditional omnimax god, in actual fact, allow for such a god to create a universe in which there is no suffering of any kind because a god of all-goodness would wish it, a god of all-knowledge would allow it to know how to do so and a god of all-power would allow that universe to be created, by definition of those concepts. No amount of tedious waffle from the likes of Hope about dynamic worlds can answer this objection.
Unless of course you don't believe in a god who is either all-knowing, all-powerful or supremely good? Hope always runs away from that particular question (as with a great many more, come to that) but you're welcome to have a bash, if you like.
The God I know, wants that all should be saved, that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, and repent.
Wibble.
-
Shaker, Shaker, an idol you-maker.
-
Shaker, Shaker, an idol you-maker.
I'm sure that meant something to you when you wrote it.
Most of the rest of us probably haven't started drinking quite this early, however.
-
Listen, John! It's never too early.
-
I am going by what is said about god in the Bible, which does give the impression it is a psycho, if it exists.
To quote you, 'when have you verified any of your claims'?
When have you verified any of your claims?
Floo, it is difficult to verify something when the means of verification available to people don't pretend to deal with that something's nature. It's rather like trying to verify the validity of a record player to someone who has never experienced a vinyl disc, or the validity of altitude sickness to someone who has never lived anywhere other than at sea-level.
-
This desperate tripe is simply making a virtue out of necessity, i.e. retrofitting the notion of a god onto the planet as it is because you have to shore up the idea on no grounds whatever.
Sorry, Shakes, but the retrofitting is all yours.
-
Sorry, Shakes, but the retrofitting is all yours.
Do explain how/where.
Not that you will, needless to say, but never let it be said that you're not given the opportunity.
-
I knew my three children would face suffering in their lives before bringing them into the world. Does that make me a psycho?
I don't think that you would be a 'psycho' for deciding to have three children, unless, of course, you had actually created the world and its potential for suffering, a world which you could have created differently if you so wished. If that were true then I might have to revise my views. :)
-
I don't think that you would be a 'psycho' for deciding to have three children, unless, of course, you had actually created the world and its potential for suffering, a world which you could have created differently if you so wished. If that were true then I might have to revise my views. :)
Good post.
-
May I provide my definition?
Look around our world and watch the news - you'll see plenty of examples of human suffering. From natural disasters to those inflicted by other humans - it's everywhere.
All this suffering and yet no sign of this god who we are told is positively bursting with love for his creation.
The first man ADAM is responsible for all the suffering and disasters in the world since he handed himself and you over to the devil.
But one man Jesus Christ claimed us all back but the order has to return and everything be renewed.
So in not accepting Christ you and all who complain actually keep the suffering going and like Adam are equally responsible for it. If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were given their rightful place in the hearts of all mankind, what would there be to wait for?
But unfortunately till the judgement these things must continue because people reject the light for the dark they love.
-
The first man ADAM is responsible for all the suffering and disasters in the world since he handed himself and you over to the devil.
But one man Jesus Christ claimed us all back but the order has to return and everything be renewed.
So in not accepting Christ you and all who complain actually keep the suffering going and like Adam are equally responsible for it. If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were given their rightful place in the hearts of all mankind, what would there be to wait for?
But unfortunately till the judgement these things must continue because people reject the light for the dark they love.
If the devil exists it couldn't be any more evil than the god that created it!
-
If the devil exists it couldn't be any more evil than the god that created it!
Floo, if you as a parent have brought your children up to care for others, to observe all social mores, ...; but you have also brought them up to think for themselves and in their adulthodd one of them turns to ma life of crime, is that your fault as a parent? Is the fact that you have allowed them to choose their own way in life a black spot agaist you?
-
The first man ADAM is responsible for all the suffering and disasters in the world since he handed himself and you over to the devil.
But one man Jesus Christ claimed us all back but the order has to return and everything be renewed.
So in not accepting Christ you and all who complain actually keep the suffering going and like Adam are equally responsible for it. If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were given their rightful place in the hearts of all mankind, what would there be to wait for?
But unfortunately till the judgement these things must continue because people reject the light for the dark they love.
Good post
-
Floo, if you as a parent have brought your children up to care for others, to observe all social mores, ...; but you have also brought them up to think for themselves and in their adulthodd one of them turns to ma life of crime, is that your fault as a parent? Is the fact that you have allowed them to choose their own way in life a black spot agaist you?
You are not comparing like with like, parents have to contend with their offspring's human nature. God supposedly created good and bad, so it is responsible for all that is wrong in this world. Stop making excuses for it!
-
Good post
Perhaps not quite as good a post as it might have been, especially when one remembers that this particular part of Genesis occurs in a theological treatise, as opposed to a historical part.
-
You are not comparing like with like, parents have to contend with their offspring's human nature. God supposedly created good and bad, so it is responsible for all that is wrong in this world. Stop making excuses for it!
No, God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.
-
No, God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.
EXCUSES, EXCUSES for god's cock up! >:(
-
#19
I am going by what is said about god in the Bible, which does give the impression it is a psycho, if it exists.
If this is the case, where is your justification in the Bible for what you claimed in your opening post?
it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
Furthermore, why do you keep on dismissing the answers provided to you? e.g. your response to Hope in #42
EXCUSES, EXCUSES for god's cock up!
At the very least, you should be able to provide biblical evidence to counter the answers if you disagree with them. You are, after all going by what is said about god in the Bible.
-
#19
If this is the case, where is your justification in the Bible for what you claimed in your opening post?
Furthermore, why do you keep on dismissing the answers provided to you? e.g. your response to Hope in #42At the very least, you should be able to provide biblical evidence to counter the answers if you disagree with them. You are, after all going by what is said about god in the Bible.
My justification is because I have actually read that book, which is more than others have if they claim the god featured therein is good!
-
No, God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.
I see the Assertatron is being flogged mercilessly today.
-
My justification is because I have actually read that book, which is more than others have if they claim the god featured therein is good!
Then why can't you provide any citations to either back up your claims or counter what others have posted in response to you?
-
Then why can't you provide any citations to either back up your claims or counter what others have posted in response to you?
If the Flood had actually happened and not been the mythical event it no doubt was, only a psycho would have flooded the whole world killing most of the humans and animals. >:(
-
I see the Assertatron is being flogged mercilessly today.
YEAH , its on the shelf next to the irony meter and the giveafuckometer. ;)
-
I couldn't agree more Shaker. The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.
-
I couldn't agree more Shaker. The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it
Examples?
which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.
What other means do you propose there are?
Like you'll ever answer ;D
-
I couldn't agree more Shaker. The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.
I'd have thought the 'daft' position is held by those who decry methodological naturalism, such as yourself, who, when asked, can't provide any alternative means (although they are dab hands when it comes to peddling fallacies).
-
I'd have thought the 'daft' position is held by those who decry methodological naturalism, such as yourself, who, when asked, can't provide any alternative means (although they are dab hands when it comes to peddling fallacies).
Post of the month! :D
-
I couldn't agree more Shaker. The problem seems to be that both sides of the debate are wielding it which, when we are discussing something that can't be proved or otherwise by mere naturalistic means, seems a tad daft.
Hope
there is NO DEBATE. because you cant produce anything of any value worth debating. Why do you not understand this ?
-
Hope
there is NO DEBATE. because you cant produce anything of any value worth debating. Why do you not understand this ?
Well, if that was the case, Walter, I doubt that the likes of Jim and I would be here, because there is seldom anything worth debating from folk like you. Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence - and I, for one, am partly here to challenge such baseless assertion. Thankfully, there are some others who speak from a similar POV as you, with whom debate is possible.
-
Well, if that was the case, Walter, I doubt that the likes of Jim and I would be here, because there is seldom anything worth debating from folk like you. Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence - and I, for one, am partly here to challenge such baseless assertion. Thankfully, there are some others who speak from a similar POV as you, with whom debate is possible.
Hope as all your faith assertions are baseless that is the pot calling the kettle black. ::)
-
Hope as all your faith assertions are baseless that is the pot calling the kettle black. ::)
put quite simply Floo, he does not understand , so I don't push him too hard on it.
-
Rather, there is assertion that has no solid evidence
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13161.msg654290#msg654290
God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.
Assertion that has no solid evidence in action.
-
The excuse that god supposedly created free will so it is the fault of humans if they suffer is pretty sick. If god created human nature it knew exactly what the outcome would be, so no excuses can be made for god's role in suffering.
-
The excuse that god supposedly created free will so it is the fault of humans if they suffer is pretty sick. If god created human nature it knew exactly what the outcome would be, so no excuses can be made for god's role in suffering.
No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God, therefore letting humans off responsibility for all the depravity and horror we read/hear about in our daily media. Your claim also seem to fly in the face of your oft-repeated mantra that people ought to take full responsibility for their 'bad' actions. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
-
No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God, therefore letting humans off responsibility for all the depravity and horror we read/hear about in our daily media. Your claim also seem to fly in the face of your oft-repeated mantra that people ought to take full responsibility for their 'bad' actions. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
GOD CREATED DEPRAVITY AND HORROR. Many of the actions attributed to that psycho are depraved and horrific, the flood for instance!
-
No less sick than your suggestion that everything is the fault of God
Floo doesn't believe in a god - her argument is directed at those who do.
There's a difference, which either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty is frequently elided.
-
Floo doesn't believe in a god - her argument is directed at those who do.
There's a difference, which either through ignorance or deliberate dishonesty is frequently elided.
In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often. Just look at the start of her most recent post.
-
In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often. Just look at the start of her most recent post.
Oh for crying out loud Hope, I am speaking hypothetically. You know darn well I don't believe the Biblical god exists, but believe it is a human creation.
-
In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often. Just look at the start of her most recent post.
What about it?
Where does it imply that Floo is discussing in anything but a conditional, "If ...." manner?
-
In that case, Shakes, Floo does the eliding very often. Just look at the start of her most recent post.
Hope
here it is , its quite simple ,if your god created everything ,then on earth he totally fucked up where humans and hyenas are concerned, have a look on YouTube
Hope , take care of yourself i wish you harm
-
What about it?
Where does it imply that Floo is discussing in anything but a conditional, "If ...." manner?
Compare her wording in #59 with that in #61. #59 is couched in what you call " ... a conditional, "If ...." manner: the start of #61 is a statement, emphasised in capital letters. I am aware that her #64 is an attempt to make out that she is speaking hypothetically, but if you follow her posts through the various 'The god of suffering', 'What does the deity look like', 'The deity should have done the decent thing', 'If you were the deity' type threads that she starts, she clearly has at least a residual belief in a God, otherwise she wouldn't be as concerned with said being as she is (in fact, she probably wouldn't have as violent an attitude as he does).
-
Hope
here it is , its quite simple ,if your god created everything ,then on earth he totally fucked up where humans and hyenas are concerned, have a look on YouTube
Hope , take care of yourself i wish you harm
Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes would hurt me. If anything, it really does tell us about you.
-
Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes would hurt me. If anything, it really does tell us about you.
sorry Hope
I made a typo
I meant I wish you NO HARM please excuse me .
-
Compare her wording in #59 with that in #61. #59 is couched in what you call " ... a conditional, "If ...." manner: the start of #61 is a statement, emphasised in capital letters.
That, no doubt, is nothing more than a paraphrase of a certain passage in the Book of Isaiah - you know, the one which has God saying that he creates evil.
She also uses the formula "... actions attributed to ..."
I am aware that her #64 is an attempt to make out that she is speaking hypothetically, but if you follow her posts through the various 'The god of suffering', 'What does the deity look like', 'The deity should have done the decent thing', 'If you were the deity' type threads that she starts, she clearly has at least a residual belief in a God, otherwise she wouldn't be as concerned with said being as she is (in fact, she probably wouldn't have as violent an attitude as he does).
You don't need to have any belief in a god, residual or otherwise, to find the concept laughably absurd and the consequences in believers of such a thing contemptible, in some cases thoroughly pernicious and repulsively objectionable (seeking to discriminate and claiming a religious excuse to do so, for example) and in at least some instances downright dangerous to wind and limb.
-
Sorry that you feel that such revolting attitudes [...]
Irony, thy name is Hope.
-
Irony, thy name is Hope.
Shaker,
please be careful , I don't know him/her but I am reminded of times of loving rather than times of conflict .We don't have to go to the far end of a fart to make a point . In the end love conquers all , everything.
happy new year Shaker.
-
The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.
God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.
A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?
Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.
-
The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.
God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.
A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?
Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.
People of faith are open to ridicule when they state as a fact something for which they have no verifiable evidence, and is only a belief.
-
The problem with the posts of those atheist posting on this thread is they have nothing but ridicule to return for the faith posts.
There are no solid arguments against the posts of Christians and even less understanding about the faith and events it is built on.
God is still working in the world today but none here go look for it.
The same as they never study or seek truth from the bible the word of God.
For all the posts there is much ridicule and the repeating of what others have said in ridicule but there is nothing to offend or deny the truth of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead.
A lot of blame if a God they do not believe in. In which case they become responsible for their own evil. Either way they condemn themselves. When will we have atheists who can produce an argument based on actual experience of having done what the bible says and having had no results based on a heart seeking truth in sincerity?
Seems deliberate ignorance is not an excuse. In fact if any atheist worth their salt could produce evidence in argument rather than insult and ridicule then we might have a discussion worth having.
unfortunately for you, your posts are so ridiculous they don't warrant an argument. Mainly because the burden of proof lies with you , not me. I see no evidence for your god it is your responsibility to convince me, not the other way round.
-
unfortunately for you, your posts are so ridiculous they don't warrant an argument. Mainly because the burden of proof lies with you , not me. I see no evidence for your god it is your responsibility to convince me, not the other way round.
Walter, if most of what you posted on the 'religion' aspects of this board were constructive (even if critical) or even sensible, I'd ignore this post. Sadly, your posts on this area of the board are so often rude, destructive and even meaningless that I am forced to point out your hypocrisy. Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.
-
Walter, if most of what you posted on the 'religion' aspects of this board were constructive (even if critical) or even sensible, I'd ignore this post. Sadly, your posts on this area of the board are so often rude, destructive and even meaningless that I am forced to point out your hypocrisy. Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.
oh dear!
Hope ,I feel like I want to buy you a cup of tea, sit you down , put my arm round your shoulder and gently explain reality.
-
Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.
Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.
That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.
-
Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.
That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.
Ah yes, how are we doing with these alleged alternative methodologies these days? Any movement on that score?
-
oh dear!
Hope ,I feel like I want to buy you a cup of tea, sit you down , put my arm round your shoulder and gently explain reality.
I admire your optimism Walter but I wouldn't waste your time; we can't even get him past the most basic basics like the burden of proof and the negative proof fallacy yet.
-
Ah yes, how are we doing with these alleged alternative methodologies these days? Any movement on that score?
I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!
-
I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject
Say it ain't so! ;D
-
I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!
Hope knows lepers never change their spots ;)
-
I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!
I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago. At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions. Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit. Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to. If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.
-
Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.
That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.
But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters, Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.
-
I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago.
You've done so relentlessly.
At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions.
Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.
Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit.
What 'aspects of reality' are these. Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?
Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to. If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.
Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?
-
But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters, Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.
No it hasn't, so another straw man: nobody has said that, since we all recognise the risk of 'unknown unknowns' cannot be absolutely excluded.
The burden of proof is yours here, but without some form of credible method your claims can reasonably be considered to be groundless, especially so when they are expressed via fallacies.
-
You've done so relentlessly.
Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.
What 'aspects of reality' are these. Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?
Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?
for god's sake Hope, please put us out of our misery .
-
for god's sake Hope, please put us out of our misery .
What? And leave the forum?
Surely not. ;)
-
Hope,
I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago. At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions. Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit.
That’s called the reification fallacy. You’re just assuming that there are “aspects of reality” beyond the possible purview of science. There may or may not be such phenomena, but without a method of any kind to investigate your claims then all you have is just that – claims.
Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to. If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.
That’s a straw man - no-one does argue that science can disprove god, or disprove leprechauns for that matter either. For the purposes of science, both conjectures are treated as “not even wrong”.
But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters,
“Evidence” is itself a naturalistic concept. Notwithstanding, if you think you have evidence of a different kind that reliably distinguishes your religious claims from just guessing, then why not finally tell us what it is?
Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.
Which is why science does no such thing. Funnily enough though, it’s often theists themselves who attempt to harness the methods of science to support their claims albeit that the effort always seems to collapse under scrutiny.
Anyways, if not for naturalistic evidence to support your claims, what method would you propose to use instead?
-
What they said.
What makes you think that there are things outside the purview of methodologically naturalistic enquiry, and if not methodologically naturalistic, what kind of method do you propose using? That's to say, what operating procedure are you using with these very much alleged things such that you're tolerably sure that you're not just guessing or making shit up as you go along?
Repetition isn't explanation, I'm afraid. And begging the question (in the true and original sense of that phrase, not the far more common bastardised version) isn't an argument. Can you answer these questions or can you not?
Several people all asking the same questions, but my money's on the brave Sir Robin act again ...
-
What they said.
What makes you think that there are things outside the purview of methodologically naturalistic enquiry, ...
Experience.
-
Experience.
So when people say they have been abducted by UFOs you think they have.
-
Experience.
How do you know that what you experienced is outwith methodological naturalism?
Presumably you must have reviewed this experience in some structured way, if only to be reasonably sure that your understanding of it wasn't mistaken.
-
You've done so relentlessly.
Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.
Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.
Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways. 'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.
What 'aspects of reality' are these.
Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?
Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.
-
Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.
Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways. 'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.
Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.
And it's shifting the burden of proof. You sound exactly like people who said Zeus threw thunderbolts. This is not a methodology. It's the incredulity fallacy yet again.
-
Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
A long time ago I posted a link to an easy-to-read but lengthy and detailed article outlining what's currently known about spontaneous healing (including of certain cancers), such as that the immune system is known to play a part, as is body temperature.
Having linked to it once, the next time you trotted out this usual guff as your favourite gap to hide a god in I reposted the link. I may have done so more than once, but it was certainly at least twice.
The fact - it is one - that you have never once even acknowledged the existence of that article and the information therein, let alone tried to take it on board, and even now pretend that it never existed, can now be ascribed not to ignorance but your constitutional dishonesty and evasiveness.
Here it is again, Sir Robin:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150306-the-mystery-of-vanishing-cancer
-
Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.
Have to say I don't recognise these others ploughing exactly the same furrow as you - this looks like some kind of safety in numbers ploy on your part.
Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways. 'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.
I'm not all that sure they have actually: what arguments has each offered in which they specifically agree with you (beyond them being fellow Christians)?
Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
We've already established, several times in fact, that your knowledge of both medicine and research methods are woeful, so your points here are an argument from ignorance: your ignorance.
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
Nope - you don't know enough about medicine to have an informed opinion.
Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.
This reads like a non sequitur, while your other points are no more than your personal incredulity writ large.
-
Hope,
please read the link supplied by Shaker then come back and tell us your thoughts on the information therein.
-
Some time ago I read about a guy that had built a small garage, a snug fit around his bubble car, he drove the car into this garage and had to stay there until help arrived to get him out, this particular bubble car of his didn't have a reverse gear, I can't quite think now, what was it that made me think of that poor bloke? Something must have joged my memory?
Ippy
-
While it has been covered before,given Hope suggesting unexplained healing as evidence for a supernatural, it seems that this is a good time to look again at the problems of such claims.
First of all, it's worth realising that science is as stressed many times previously methodological naturalistic. Despite what some on both sides of the belief or not in the supernatural think, it offers no confirmation that the causes are naturalistic, just that if we make the assumption that they are, then the method appears to work. The point that dismissed by many when the likes of universe controlling pixies are mentioned as the cause of everything, is that this precisely applies to everything. All gravity, all cures all things. This causes an issue for those who want to claim two different set of causes natural/supernatural as the method they state covers the natural does not in a philosophical sense do this.
That, of course, makes it impossible to even suggest a distinction with other causes as it is a misrepresentation of the claim of science, but worse is that,they attempt to make this claim by ignoring actual precepts of science, e.g. that it is provisional to then further their case. One person on here who argues for conclusions that I do not agree with , does seem to get this, and that is Sriram when he argues that there is no such divide between natural and supernatural. The problem for those arguing for a supernatural cause is that they actually mistake the nature of science and imbue it with an objectivity it does not have.
This is then backed up by the classic god of the gaps approach which using the unjustified idea that science shows natural causes as being true, then argues that what doesn't seem to fit must be this other thing called supernatural. In so doing they, as noted already, ignore the provisionality of any scientific finding and add in their own incredulity as the determining method.
Oddly most of this has been implied by Vlad when he points out that philosophical naturalism cannot prove itself, but he fails to understand quite how deep the problem is, and this is why he ends up misrepresenting so many people who are not philosophical naturalists. At base this is our old friend the 'going nuclear' option as regards to method, and indeed logical conclusions. Once the relativism is introduced, it means you cannot rely on AMY of the indications from the method to show anything that is objective.
As a relativist, this causes me no problems because I donemake claims for objectivity. I"m aware of the various scenarios of brains in vat, the possibility that it's all just a hologram flowing from the information bleed from the event horizon of a black hole, that even the seemingly immovable object of the cogito may be a mirage for an emergent facility of quantum processes. But as a relativist nine of that really matters. For those who want objectivity and absolutes, it is fatal to the approach.
-
No, God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.
If god created free will and perfection, then these two concepts are meaningless without their creation. If you believe god has existed without these creations, you're saying god has no free will and is not prefect.
-
Given your definition, I'd say that there are many signs of God in those situations.
Committed workers, motivated by faith, giving humanitarian and medical aid in situations of the greatest danger.
Do you expect God to stop the natural disasters?
Why?
Wouldn't that contravene way nature works - and the way the planet keeps on working?
Or stop the wars?
Why?
Wouldn't that impinge on the whole free will thing again - which I'm not dipping my toes in on this thread ?
How would it impinge on free will? Stopping me from acting on my free will is not stopping free will. If I want to go to the shops, but you physically stop me from going, that has in no way impinged on me wanting to go the shops.
-
Nearly Sane wrote:
First of all, it's worth realising that science is as stressed many times previously methodological naturalistic. Despite what some on both sides of the belief or not in the supernatural think, it offers no confirmation that the causes are naturalistic, just that if we make the assumption that they are, then the method appears to work. The point that dismissed by many when the likes of universe controlling pixies are mentioned as the cause of everything, is that this precisely applies to everything. All gravity, all cures all things. This causes an issue for those who want to claim two different set of causes natural/supernatural as the method they state covers the natural does not in a philosophical sense do this.
When I was a postgrad, we had a lecturer who used to argue that scientists make observations about appearances. For him, this freed up the whole thing, as a scientist is not trying to go into the nature of these appearances, there is simply no need to. Also, it's a kind of skeptical position, i.e. we don't know what they are.
Of course, it's different in a philosophical context, where one can argue about what these appearances are, whether material, forms of energy, or whatever. But I don't think this affects the basic structure of scientific method, which is not trying to ascertain the 'heart of reality'.
-
Hope,
Experience.
Couple of problems with that:
First, by "experience" what you actually mean is the explanatory narratives you tell yourself that you find to be most persuasive - "The doctors said little Timmy was a gonner but he recovered anyway. That'll be "God" then" etc. That there are various other explanations, and that the approach relies fundamentally of false reasoning (who's to say that a corporeal cause of little Timmy's recovery won't be discovered tomorrow by medical science etc?) bothers you not a jot. The explanation works for you, so it must be true.
Second, countless people have believed just as fervently, deeply, profoundly, transcendently etc in their experiences of countless other unfalsifiable conjectures as you believe in your experiences of your unfalsifiable conjecture. Why then should anyone privilege your supposed experience over any of the others?
That is, thinking you've had a personal experience can provide only a personal truth - but there's no logical bridge whatever from that to truths for anyone else.
-
That is, thinking you've had a personal experience can provide only a personal truth - but there's no logical bridge whatever from that to truths for anyone else.
I agree. I wouldn't expect my personal experiences, which have done the business for me, to be the 'truth' for others.
-
I agree floo, what works for one may not work for someone else. We're all so different. There's no doubt that feeling positive and hopeful helps healing, how one feels is very important.
-
Brownie,
I agree floo, what works for one may not work for someone else. We're all so different. There's no doubt that feeling positive and hopeful helps healing, how one feels is very important.
No doubt, but there's a qualitative difference between opinions about gods and opinions about, say, gravity. That's the point - Hope can think he's experienced anything he likes, but that's not evidence for anything. Falling out of the window on the other hand would be.
-
I agree floo, what works for one may not work for someone else. We're all so different. There's no doubt that feeling positive and hopeful helps healing, how one feels is very important.
however, feeling positive and hopeful will not grow back the blown off leg of a soldier, it can only change the way he thinks about it
-
however, feeling positive and hopeful will not grow back the blown off leg of a soldier, it can only change the way he thinks about it
I believe that religious scam merchant, Benny Hinn, has claimed amputated limbs have regrown. ::)
-
Floo,
I believe that religious scam merchant, Benny Hinn, has claimed amputated limbs have regrown. ::)
As he'll reportedly fleece the gullible for an arm and a leg, that's probably quite handy!
-
however, feeling positive and hopeful will not grow back the blown off leg of a soldier, it can only change the way he thinks about it
You are right there, Walter, plus what blue said.
Floo, I didn't know Benny Hinn claimed that limbs have grown back! Do people really believe that? I am gobsmacked.
-
Most vangelicals - even the exxtreme lot - take Hinn with the same amount of salt that everyone else takes David Icke.
-
That's true, Anchor, thankfully.
I never liked to listen to the Prosperity Gospel and miracles on Premier but someone I worked with listened to Benny Hinn whenever he was on (every evening?), taped him and gave me a couple of tapes which I listened to because she wanted me to. I found it quite uncomfortable.
Just found this article/blog from a Christian who attended one of his meetings:
https://www.onfaith.co/commentary/the-five-most-disturbing-things-about-a-benny-hinn-miracle-service
There are quite a few reports of limbs growing back, I've not seen any involving Hinn but it wouldn't surprise me.
Some people are so desperate, they will try anything but it is so unfair for them to be exploited.
The only healing services I ever attended were low key and prayerful with no promises of miracles - but they were compassionate.
-
You are right there, Walter, plus what blue said.
Floo, I didn't know Benny Hinn claimed that limbs have grown back! Do people really believe that? I am gobsmacked.
What people believe to be true is very gobsmacking. I was told by an intelligent relative by marriage, the dead were being raised in Africa. When asked why it wasn't headlines news, god apparently wanted them to keep it under wraps, or some such nonsense
-
however, feeling positive and hopeful will not grow back the blown off leg of a soldier, it can only change the way he thinks about it
I'm not sure that's what Brownie said - she said that:
'There's no doubt that feeling positive and hopeful helps healing, how one feels is very important.'
And there is no doubt she is right on this - indeed there is excellent scientific evidence that state of mind and mental well-being (or otherwise) affect all sorts of physiological function linked to healing and combatting disease. The immune system can be boosted or suppressed according to mental state.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with some kind of supernatural intervention - it is all neatly contained within our individual physiology. Sure some people might pray and that might support a better mental state and in doing so aid healing. But there is no supernatural component and indeed others might get the same effect from whatever 'rocks their boat' in terms of boosting mental state, whether that be music, seeing friends or family, breathing fresh air and looking at the sun set over the sea. All might have the same boost to healing and the immune system, but as with prayer none work via supernatural means.
-
Yes that is what I meant, it's all about having a good immune system and release of endorphins. If a person feels quite well and lives a bit longer, that's all good. It doesn't necessarily mean they are cured.
Coincidentally, the lady I've talked about on the Prayer forum, Barbara, was told that she was very fit, had a strong immune system and her progress quite remarkable for someone of her age. She is certainly feeling good and active.
Speaking of boosting the immune system, very sick people are often given steroids such as Prednisolone to do just that but there can be bad side effects.
-
Yes that is what I meant, it's all about having a good immune system and release of endorphins. If a person feels quite well and lives a bit longer, that's all good. It doesn't necessarily mean they are cured.
Coincidentally, the lady I've talked about on the Prayer forum, Barbara, was told that she was very fit, had a strong immune system and her progress quite remarkable for someone of her age. She is certainly feeling good and active.
Speaking of boosting the immune system, very sick people are often given steroids such as Prednisolone to do just that but there can be bad side effects.
Steroids can have very bad side effects. I was given some about 15 years ago and they did me no good at all. One of my daughters was prescribed them for a condition she has, and it made it so much worse. One of my neighbours was made very ill after taking them. :o
-
I'm not sure that's what Brownie said - she said that:
'There's no doubt that feeling positive and hopeful helps healing, how one feels is very important.'
And there is no doubt she is right on this - indeed there is excellent scientific evidence that state of mind and mental well-being (or otherwise) affect all sorts of physiological function linked to healing and combatting disease. The immune system can be boosted or suppressed according to mental state.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with some kind of supernatural intervention - it is all neatly contained within our individual physiology. Sure some people might pray and that might support a better mental state and in doing so aid healing. But there is no supernatural component and indeed others might get the same effect from whatever 'rocks their boat' in terms of boosting mental state, whether that be music, seeing friends or family, breathing fresh air and looking at the sun set over the sea. All might have the same boost to healing and the immune system, but as with prayer none work via supernatural means.
you're right, because that's what I said.
and of course I agree with the rest of your post , My lifestyle is testimony to that effect.
-
Yes floo, I wouldn't like to take them but for some people they are wonderful. A friend of mine had almost crippling RA and Lupus; she was pain free and mobile for many years because of the anti-inflammatory properties of steroids. President Kennedy was on them from his twenties I believe, and they helped him - he functioned perfectly well despite having Addison's. My neighbours' son-in-law has MS and is, or was, on steroids. I don't know how much better he felt for them, he certainly put on a lot of weight.
Coming off steroids can cause the immune system to crash and that's horrible, they are supposed to be tailed off but everyone metabolises at a different rate. Bone density can be impaired too.
It's difficult for anyone who is sick to know what to do for the best, I think they'd try anything which might help.
At least with prescribed drugs a person can come off them if they don't suit, they are not being exploited by the likes of Mr Hinn. A "high" that he will give them cannot last for long, like anything it has to be topped up.
Then there's his Prosperity teaching but that's a different subject.
-
Most vangelicals - even the exxtreme lot - take Hinn with the same amount of salt that everyone else takes David Icke.
I have a one word description for Hinn and it begins with a 'C'
-
Hi NS,
While it has been covered before,given Hope suggesting unexplained healing as evidence for a supernatural, it seems that this is a good time to look again at the problems of such claims.
First of all, it's worth realising that science is as stressed many times previously methodological naturalistic. Despite what some on both sides of the belief or not in the supernatural think, it offers no confirmation that the causes are naturalistic, just that if we make the assumption that they are, then the method appears to work. The point that dismissed by many when the likes of universe controlling pixies are mentioned as the cause of everything, is that this precisely applies to everything. All gravity, all cures all things. This causes an issue for those who want to claim two different set of causes natural/supernatural as the method they state covers the natural does not in a philosophical sense do this.
That, of course, makes it impossible to even suggest a distinction with other causes as it is a misrepresentation of the claim of science, but worse is that,they attempt to make this claim by ignoring actual precepts of science, e.g. that it is provisional to then further their case. One person on here who argues for conclusions that I do not agree with , does seem to get this, and that is Sriram when he argues that there is no such divide between natural and supernatural. The problem for those arguing for a supernatural cause is that they actually mistake the nature of science and imbue it with an objectivity it does not have.
This is then backed up by the classic god of the gaps approach which using the unjustified idea that science shows natural causes as being true, then argues that what doesn't seem to fit must be this other thing called supernatural. In so doing they, as noted already, ignore the provisionality of any scientific finding and add in their own incredulity as the determining method.
Oddly most of this has been implied by Vlad when he points out that philosophical naturalism cannot prove itself, but he fails to understand quite how deep the problem is, and this is why he ends up misrepresenting so many people who are not philosophical naturalists. At base this is our old friend the 'going nuclear' option as regards to method, and indeed logical conclusions. Once the relativism is introduced, it means you cannot rely on AMY of the indications from the method to show anything that is objective.
As a relativist, this causes me no problems because I donemake claims for objectivity. I"m aware of the various scenarios of brains in vat, the possibility that it's all just a hologram flowing from the information bleed from the event horizon of a black hole, that even the seemingly immovable object of the cogito may be a mirage for an emergent facility of quantum processes. But as a relativist nine of that really matters. For those who want objectivity and absolutes, it is fatal to the approach.
By and large I agree with pretty much all of that. Just to tease out a couple of points though:
The problem for those arguing for a supernatural cause is that they actually mistake the nature of science and imbue it with an objectivity it does not have.
Well, it depends what you mean by “objective” here. Clearly there’s a qualitative difference between personal faith beliefs (essentially unverifiable opinions) and the methods and findings of science (essentially verifiable models of the way the universe appears to be). I’m relaxed about calling the former “subjective” and the latter “objective” as a useful distinction between the two. “Objective” specifically is fine as a place marker for “true enough” or “workably true” I think provided no appeal is made to absolutes, or to certainty.
In so doing they, as noted already, ignore the provisionality of any scientific finding and add in their own incredulity as the determining method.
Not just the provisionality of the scientific findings we have, but also the legitimacy of the “don’t know”. The mistake then is to see a “don’t know” from science as licence to fill in “God”, “Poseidon”, “Thor” etc as if any of those conjectures were investigable so as to verify the claim. This is essentially what Hope does – someone got better and the doctors had no explanation for it, therefore “God” etc. Epistemically, it’s no different to using Thor as the explanation for thunder.
Oddly most of this has been implied by Vlad when he points out that philosophical naturalism cannot prove itself, but he fails to understand quite how deep the problem is, and this is why he ends up misrepresenting so many people who are not philosophical naturalists. At base this is our old friend the 'going nuclear' option as regards to method, and indeed logical conclusions. Once the relativism is introduced, it means you cannot rely on AMY of the indications from the method to show anything that is objective.
It’s actually worse than that. I’d say that I’m a philosophical naturalis(mis)t provided you stick to its actual meaning – ie, that the the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. What Vlad does though is to re-define it to mean, “the belief that the natural is necessarily all there is” and then attacks it as an unverifiable claim. He’s hugely invested in the mistake so won’t back down from it, but it’s a complete straw man nonetheless.
And yes – even if he could ever find someone who does subscribe to his personal version of it, that’d only be going nuclear – all he’d have would be “everything’s all guessing anyway” which helps his religious claims not a bit.
Oddly, he’s not alone I find in the need the religious often seem to have for certainty. “Philosophical naturalism” has to mean everything is natural; extreme moral questions have to be objectively answered etc. Some of us though are quite happy with the idea of uncertainty, of probabilistic rather than absolute truths etc so we don’t even recognise the problem as genuine.
But as a relativist nine of that really matters. For those who want objectivity and absolutes, it is fatal to the approach.
Quite so – which is why I wonder whether some aren’t pre-wired to believe in god(s). If you think that “God” is absolute, all-encompassing, rock solid certain in all He knows and does that’s quite appealing I guess for those who need those properties to make sense of the world.
-
Hi NS,
By and large I agree with pretty much all of that. Just to tease out a couple of points though:
Well, it depends what you mean by “objective” here. Clearly there’s a qualitative difference between personal faith beliefs (essentially unverifiable opinions) and the methods and findings of science (essentially verifiable models of the way the universe appears to be). I’m relaxed about calling the former “subjective” and the latter “objective” as a useful distinction between the two. “Objective” specifically is fine as a place marker for “true enough” or “workably true” I think provided no appeal is made to absolutes, or to certainty.
Not just the provisionality of the scientific findings we have, but also the legitimacy of the “don’t know”. The mistake then is to see a “don’t know” from science as licence to fill in “God”, “Poseidon”, “Thor” etc as if any of those conjectures were investigable so as to verify the claim. This is essentially what Hope does – someone got better and the doctors had no explanation for it, therefore “God” etc. Epistemically, it’s no different to using Thor as the explanation for thunder.
It’s actually worse than that. I’d say that I’m a philosophical naturalis(mis)t provided you stick to its actual meaning – ie, that the the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. What Vlad does though is to re-define it to mean, “the belief that the natural is necessarily all there is” and then attacks it as an unverifiable claim. He’s hugely invested in the mistake so won’t back down from it, but it’s a complete straw man nonetheless.
And yes – even if he could ever find someone who does subscribe to his personal version of it, that’d only be going nuclear – all he’d have would be “everything’s all guessing anyway” which helps his religious claims not a bit.
Oddly, he’s not alone I find in the need the religious often seem to have for certainty. “Philosophical naturalism” has to mean everything is natural; extreme moral questions have to be objectively answered etc. Some of us though are quite happy with the idea of uncertainty, of probabilistic rather than absolute truths etc so we don’t even recognise the problem as genuine.
Quite so – which is why I wonder whether some aren’t pre-wired to believe in god(s). If you think that “God” is absolute, all-encompassing, rock solid certain in all He knows and does that’s quite appealing I guess for those who need those properties to make sense of the world.
Demonstrate to me any sense in which moral questions are subject to probability. To be honest I think you are doing more or less the same as Vlad here, in that you make the point that truth/objectivity cannot be fully obtained and then hey presto you leap the problems of solipsism by saying you accept a basic axiom and then ignoring that there isn't a possible objective reason for doing so. You are saying that you think the 'natural' is all that can be investigated because you have already accepted an axiom that it"s what is being investigated, which makes your position entirely circular.
-
NS,
Demonstrate to me any sense in which moral questions are subject to probability.
I don't say that. Moral answers seem to me to be a mix of intuition and reasoning, and sometimes they catch the wind and become the Zeitgeist accordingly (until and unless they change). There's no truth component as there is when considering, say, gravity. The probabilistic truth part concerns for example the findings of science - if I jump out of the window it's probably true that I'll hit the deck shortly afterwards, and that gives me a "true enough" truth to allow me to distinguish that clam from, say, the claim that there's an invisible dragon living in my garage.
To be honest I think you are doing more or less the same as Vlad here, in that you make the point that truth/objectivity cannot be fully obtained and then hey presto you leap the problems of solipsism by saying you accept a basic axiom and then ignoring that there isn't a possible objective reason for doing so. You are saying that you think the 'natural' is all that can be investigated because you have already accepted an axiom that it"s what is being investigated, which makes your position entirely circular.
No - see above. What I said was that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable - and we know that because (as you noted) it provides truths that demonstrably work: 'planes fly, medicines cure etc. There's no avoiding the problem of solipsism there at all - for all I know it's all a mirage, "I" am a brain in a vat or a bit of junk code in a giant computer game somewhere. Inasmuch as I can sort and model the world as it appears to be though, the distinctions "subjective" and "objective" are useful ones with no appeal to absolutes in either case.
And that's very different to Vlad's approach.
-
Yes floo, I wouldn't like to take them but for some people they are wonderful.
True - I speak from experience (I thanked the steroids, and the splendid doctor: not God though :) )
-
NS,
I don't. Moral answers seem to me to be a mix of intuition and reasoning, and sometimes they catch the wind and become the Zeitgeist accordingly (until and unless they change). There's no truth component as there is when considering, say, gravity. The probabilistic truth part concerns for example the findings of science - if I jump out of the window it's probably true that I'll hit the deck shortly afterwards, and that gives me a "true enough" truth to allow me to distinguish that clam from, say, the claim that there's an invisible dragon living in my garage.
No - see above. What I said was that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable - and we know that because (as you noted) it provides truths that demonstrably work: 'planes fly, medicines cure etc. There's no avoiding the problem of solipsism there at all - for all I know it's all a mirage, "I" am a brain in a vat or a bit of junk code in a giant computer game somewhere. Inasmuch as I can sort and model the world as it appears to be though, the distinctions "subjective" and "objective" are useful ones with no appeal to absolutes in either case.
And that's very different to Vlad's approach.
Nope, you still are not getting the problem. To state the natural is all we know of that us investigable, id to state the causes of it as in cause and effect are naturalistic. You actually have no way to establish this as it's just a built in part of the axiom that we will assume that things have natural causes. We do not rule out the possibility that all or any causes are supernatural because we have no method to do that. That's where your circularity us, and that's why it's just like Vlad in that you use the axiom you assume to prove itself
-
That's true, Anchor, thankfully. I never liked to listen to the Prosperity Gospel and miracles on Premier but someone I worked with listened to Benny Hinn whenever he was on (every evening?), taped him and gave me a couple of tapes which I listened to because she wanted me to. I found it quite uncomfortable. Just found this article/blog from a Christian who attended one of his meetings: https://www.onfaith.co/commentary/the-five-most-disturbing-things-about-a-benny-hinn-miracle-service There are quite a few reports of limbs growing back, I've not seen any involving Hinn but it wouldn't surprise me. Some people are so desperate, they will try anything but it is so unfair for them to be exploited. The only healing services I ever attended were low key and prayerful with no promises of miracles - but they were compassionate.
Agreed, Brownie. Like you., Hinn and his ilk worry me - the prosperity gospel rubbish - and that's what it is - has nothing of the Christian message I know in it. Bad stuff happens to folk - Christian or nonchristian - and sometimes - often - we have to tolerate it, cope with it, deal with it and even use it in any way God asks us to. As I've pointed out on this thread, Paul was a prime example of someone who had to endure suffering and disability, without, as far as we know, healing. Far from being a hinderance, it was a tool he used in the work he was asked to do. If that was Paul's lot, then sometimes the rest of us need to see that, whether we like it or not, the answer to prayer is 'No' - or 'Not yet'. As for healing services, I've attended a few and even had the honour of laying on of hands and anointing a person. This was done in a dignified, worshipful, ordered and prayerful manner - which was far more effective than the mass hysteria of a Hinn 'event'. Was everyone we prayed for healed? No (though a few were.) Yet everyone WAS lifted, enriched and energised and many were renewed in faith to continue. That's fine in my book.
-
NS,
Nope, you still are not getting the problem. To state the natural is all we know of that us investigable, id to state the causes of it as in cause and effect are naturalistic.
Nope. By “investigable” I mean only that we can only work on assumptions of cause and effect (as I’ve said often, I assume that my fingers are hitting the keys but I have to way to establish that, say, there aren’t invisible pixies sneaking in just ahead of me and doing it instead). Absent a model that better fits the phenomena I think I observe though, those assumptions are all I have to work with. I well aware though that – as Hume said – ultimately nothing can be proven to be causal of an effect.
You actually have no way to establish this as it's just a built in part of the axiom that we will assume that things have natural causes. We do not rule out the possibility that all or any causes are supernatural because we have no method to do that. That's where your circularity us, and that's why it's just like Vlad in that you use the axiom you assume to prove itself
Nope – see above. It’s not something I seek to establish at all, and there is no circularity therefore.
-
NS,
Nope – see above. It’s not something I seek to establish at all, and there is no circularity therefore.
But it is something that you state when you say you are a philosophic naturalist and that 'the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable' since you are admitting that you cannot know that at the same time. You are now contradicting yourself.
-
But it is something that you state when you say you are a philosophic naturalist and that 'the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable' since you are admitting that you cannot know that at the same time. You are now contradicting yourself.
Have to admit that my little head is beginning to hurt :)
-
NS,
But it is something that you state when you say you are a philosophic naturalist and that 'the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable' since you are admitting that you cannot know that at the same time. You are now contradicting yourself.
I don't see a contradiction there at all. Remember I went on to explain what I meant by the term (ie, something other than Vlad's personal definition of it). "Reliably" in this context just means "within the context of various axioms and assumptions" - not "absolutely", "certainly" or similar. In that context 'planes fly and medicines cure, but I rely on axioms to accept that there are any 'planes and medicines at all, as indeed I do for concept of "I".
-
I have a one word description for Hinn and it begins with a 'C'
Charming?
-
I thought Walter meant, "Chin", because it rhymes with "Hinn", and he does have a double chin. That's Benny Hinn, not Walter.
http://cdn.charismanews.com/images/stories/2015/featured-news/benny_hinn.jpg
-
Charming?
yeah, that's right ::)
-
NS,
I don't see a contradiction there at all. Remember I went on to explain what I meant by the term (ie, something other than Vlad's personal definition of it). "Reliably" in this context just means "within the context of various axioms and assumptions" - not "absolutely", "certainly" or similar. In that context 'planes fly and medicines cure, but I rely on axioms to accept that there are any 'planes and medicines at all, as indeed I do for concept of "I".
You don't have a method that 'reliably' shows natural causes, you have one that assumes them. In which case your 'knowing' is built on the assumption, and you are back to your position being circular.
-
NS,
You don't have a method that 'reliably' shows natural causes, you have one that assumes them. In which case your 'knowing' is built on the assumption, and you are back to your position being circular.
Nope - you're still trying to read too much into it.
First, the "reliably" referred to observable phenomena ('planes flying, medicines curing etc) rather than to an epistemic discussion of cause and effect.
Second, "reliably" in this context just means "consistently" or "predictably". However many 'planes I look at, pretty much all of them will fly. Whether that's actually because they're held aloft by the invisible hands of the winged god Hermes rather than by the natural forcers of weight, lift, thrust and drag is though a different matter entirely.
That's what's meant when people say that the fruits of science observably work - and thus a positive feedback loop is created for their (probabilistic) truth values. Strict epistemic considerations of cause and effect on the other hand are a different matter, and for the purpose of distinguishing scientific from religious claims the assumption of cause and effect is sufficient. The alternative is - as you noted - to go nuclear, which lays waste to any discussion about (probable) truth vs (probable) non truth. This is essentially what Vlad does when he re-defines "philosophical naturalism" and then tries his, "OK I might be guessing, but so are you" schtick.
Not sure why you're flogging this dead horse so hard, but a dead horse it seems to be nonetheless.
-
NS,
Nope - you're still trying to read too much into it.
First, the "reliably" referred to observable phenomena ('planes flying, medicines curing etc) rather than to an epistemic discussion of cause and effect.
Second, "reliably" in this context just means "consistently" or "predictably". However many 'planes I look at, pretty much all of them will fly. Whether that's actually because they're held aloft by the invisible hands of the winged god Hermes rather than by the natural forcers of weight, lift, thrust and drag is though a different matter entirely.
That's what's meant when people say that the fruits of science observably work - and thus a positive feedback loop is created for their (probabilistic) truth values. Strict epistemic considerations of cause and effect on the other hand are a different matter, and for the purpose of distinguishing scientific from religious claims the assumption of cause and effect is sufficient. The alternative is - as you noted - to go nuclear, which lays waste to any discussion about (probable) truth vs (probable) non truth. This is essentially what Vlad does when he re-defines "philosophical naturalism" and then tries his, "OK I might be guessing, but so are you" schtick.
Not sure why you're flogging this dead horse so hard, but a dead horse it seems to be nonetheless.
But in stating your philosophic naturalist position of the 'natural is we know that is investigable' you are stating an epistemic (ser use of 'know') conclusion which by your above post you admit cannot be justified. We have a method that is based on an axiom, it cannot be extended to a philosophical claim as you have done earlier.
Further going nuclear, while we both agree on its effect on Vlad's case, is not problematic if one is a relativist. It's perfectly possible being a relativist to accept that what appears to work is useful, indeed that we have little choice but to believe it works. In that sense it's like free will. I have no evidence outside personal experience that it does exist. And methodological naturalism would rule it out, but I have no choice but to act as if it does. In many ways this parallels the 'arguments' put by theists for their god(s).
When I put up the post that triggered this particular discussion between us, I argued that Sriram's approach is justifiable in claiming that we create a non existent divide between the natural and the supernatural. Now, I think we will agree that that is done by those making the claims of the supernatural since it posits something not only that we do not have evidence for, but that in our categorisation of evidence, we cannot have evidence for. That they then seek to say 'unexplained' things are evidence, I think we will also both agree is a contradiction in their position and one that is based on the personal incredulity fallacy.
However, any move beyond acceptance of methodological naturalism to philosophical seems to me a positive claim that we don't have evidence for, and as with the supernatural claims cannot have evidence for because it's built-in the unprovable axiom and would therefore be circular.
-
NS,
But in stating your philosophic naturalist position of the 'natural is we know that is investigable' you are stating an epistemic (ser use of 'know') conclusion which by your above post you admit cannot be justified. We have a method that is based on an axiom, it cannot be extended to a philosophical claim as you have done earlier.
What philosophical claim do you think I have made? I’ve neither said nor implied that we reliably know that A causes B – rather all I’ve said is that certain phenomena observably happen consistently and predictably: ‘planes are designed and built, and then they fly etc. There’s no claim to an ultimate or an absolute truth there – only to our observations about the way the world appears to be.
That the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable is also only a statement of observed experience. While it’s entirely possible that someone one day will propose a method to access “God” and to investigate the claim, so far at least no-one has ever managed to do so. That’s the relevance of the “all we know of” bit: what we know of makes no claim to an equivalence to all there is.
Further going nuclear, while we both agree on its effect on Vlad's case, is not problematic if one is a relativist.
I agree – and I am one!
It's perfectly possible being a relativist to accept that what appears to work is useful, indeed that we have little choice but to believe it works.
Quite so – and what works we often label “true” and what doesn’t we label “not true” (or at least “not shown to be true”). For epistemic purposes that’s good enough – indeed it’s all we have to assign probabilistic values to truth propositions. The point though is that these conclusions are probabilistic – there’s no way to map them to universal or absolute positions.
In that sense it's like free will. I have no evidence outside personal experience that it does exist. And methodological naturalism would rule it out, but I have no choice but to act as if it does. In many ways this parallels the 'arguments' put by theists for their god(s).
I’m with you on the first bit, but less sure on your analogy to religious arguments. Yes I have to behave as if I have “free” will, albeit that I can rationalise what’s actually happening to an unfathomably long chain of causes and effects. As for belief in god(s) though, why would I have no choice about that too? There are plenty who have lost their faith and have proceeded accordingly, and it seems to me that there is a practical alternative to it of a type that isn’t available to me if I want to dump the notion of free will. That is, beliefs in gods are discretionary in a way that. say, beliefs about what will happen if I jump out of the window are not.
When I put up the post that triggered this particular discussion between us, I argued that Sriram's approach is justifiable in claiming that we create a non existent divide between the natural and the supernatural.
Here we part company. The divide is in the narratives we can tell about each type of truth claim – for the former we can investigate and model, and attach probabilistic values to the results; for the latter though, what? Again, that says nothing to notions of absolutes about either claims of the natural or of the supernatural – rather it just says that, if I assume the “I” that appears to be, then that “I” can use a method to sort the probably true from the probably not true, and then proceed accordingly.
Now, I think we will agree that that is done by those making the claims of the supernatural since it posits something not only that we do not have evidence for, but that in our categorisation of evidence, we cannot have evidence for. That they then seek to say 'unexplained' things are evidence, I think we will also both agree is a contradiction in their position and one that is based on the personal incredulity fallacy.
Pretty much, yes. I’d look askance at the “our categorisation of evidence” bit though – if the word is to mean anything (eg, “distinguishable from guessing”) then at core the categorisation has to be the same for whoever is using it, albeit that the attendant methods could in principle at least be different.
However, any move beyond acceptance of methodological naturalism to philosophical seems to me a positive claim that we don't have evidence for, and as with the supernatural claims cannot have evidence for because it's built-in the unprovable axiom and would therefore be circular.
Perhaps we’re at cross purposes about what each of us mean by “philosophical naturalism” here? What I mean by it (and what any reference source I look at say it means) is essentially that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable (albeit that everything rests on the axioms we talked about earlier). Vlad’s straw man version on the other hand is that it means something like, “the natural is necessarily all there is” – which a moment’s thought re the problem of unknown unknowns will tell you would be untenable.
That’s the only positive claim I make therefore, and it seems fine to me. Only if I overreached into the World of Vlad re-definition of it would the circularity you refer to apply.
-
To Bluehilkside:
I am at a losss as to why restating your philosophical naturalist statement which I used in my post both restating it at the start and then referring to it throughout is helping. It is in its use of 'know' and 'natural' making an epistemic claim which is ined by the axiom. Brwak away for a moment from Vlad's position which we both agree is flawed, and look at that claim to knowledge you make. In order for it to be judged in any way probabilistically true you would gave to have something that showed the claim to be valid. As the method makes an assumption, it cannot be the method that shows this.
BTW I don't think anyone talking about probabilistically true can be a relativist since it assumes that there is an absolute standatprd of truth against which the probabilistic can be measured. If there is no measure nothing can be more or less true in any sense
-
NS,
I am at a losss as to why restating your philosophical naturalist statement which I used in my post both restating it at the start and then referring to it throughout is helping. It is in its use of 'know' and 'natural' making an epistemic claim which is ined by the axiom. Brwak away for a moment from Vlad's position which we both agree is flawed, and look at that claim to knowledge you make. In order for it to be judged in any way probabilistically true you would gave to have something that showed the claim to be valid. As the method makes an assumption, it cannot be the method that shows this.
No – think of it like the tiers of a wedding cake. We might not know whether the bottom tier is real but, if we assume it is, we can then model the world on the basis of the tiers above it. I cannot “know” with any certainty whether the “I” that appears to be exists at all but, once I assume it does, then various arguments in logic can follow albeit relying on some underlying axioms. One of those arguments concerns the observable effect of various claims: I can compare the claim, “if I jump out of the window I will hit the deck shortly afterwards” with the claim, “if I jump out of the window an angel will lower me gently to the ground” with practical experiments and, when I do, decide that one claim is “probably true” and the other is “probably not true”.
And yes, I am aware of Russell’s turkey (actually he used a chicken I think) – ie, the turkey thinks, “this nice farmer feeds me every day, therefore that’s what farmers do” with disastrous results. For all I know one day an angel would lower me to the ground, but the entire sample of (say) a million experiments at least suggests otherwise. That’s what I mean by “know” in the sentence, “the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable”. It could all be built on quicksand for all I know (ie the axioms are false), but it’s all I have to work with. That’s the only validity I claim – valid by reference to the only axiom-based reasoning available to me, but not to any supposed absolute value.
By contrast, what though should I work with when someone asserts “God”?
BTW I don't think anyone talking about probabilistically true can be a relativist since it assumes that there is an absolute standatprd of truth against which the probabilistic can be measured. If there is no measure nothing can be more or less true in any sense
As I said earlier, by “probabilistically” I only mean “more likely than not based on observation”. It’s probabilistically true that a dropped ball will fall to the ground as it has every other time I’ve tried it – but for all know the next time it could fly sideways instead. To make the statement, “dropped balls will probably fall to the ground” I don’t though need to assume an absolute standard of truth at all.
-
NS,
No – think of it like the tiers of a wedding cake. We might not know whether the bottom tier is real but, if we assume it is, we can then model the world on the basis of the tiers above it. I cannot “know” with any certainty whether the “I” that appears to be exists at all but, once I assume it does, then various arguments in logic can follow albeit relying on some underlying axioms. One of those arguments concerns the observable effect of various claims: I can compare the claim, “if I jump out of the window I will hit the deck shortly afterwards” with the claim, “if I jump out of the window an angel will lower me gently to the ground” with practical experiments and, when I do, decide that one claim is “probably true” and the other is “probably not true”.
And yes, I am aware of Russell’s turkey (actually he used a chicken I think) – ie, the turkey thinks, “this nice farmer feeds me every day, therefore that’s what farmers do” with disastrous results. For all I know one day an angel would lower me to the ground, but the entire sample of (say) a million experiments at least suggests otherwise. That’s what I mean by “know” in the sentence, “the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable”. It could all be built on quicksand for all I know (ie the axioms are false), but it’s all I have to work with. That’s the only validity I claim – valid by reference to the only axiom-based reasoning available to me, but not to any supposed absolute value.
By contrast, what though should I work with when someone asserts “God”?
As I said earlier, by “probabilistically” I only mean “more likely than not based on observation”. It’s probabilistically true that a dropped ball will fall to the ground as it has every other time I’ve tried it – but for all know the next time it could fly sideways instead. To make the statement, “dropped balls will probably fall to the ground” I don’t though need to assume an absolute standard of truth at all.
It doesn't matter which level you approach it on, and you are getting confused with invalidating the claims of theists, which is not something we are disagreeing on, and your own epistemic claims. That things appear to happen in a way that can be measured is fine. Again we don't disagree but what is actually happening I.e. are those things that happen what we classify as natural is not something that can be demonstrated by a method that makes that assumption.
Indeed the distinction itself, as already covered, between natural/supernatural is meaningless unless iris looked at from the idea that there any such thing as the supernatural. That's why I keep on mentioning Sriram's take that whatever happens and however it is caused is all part of the same process. Making a philosophic claim of an epistemic kind as regards natural is making a category error unless you think that the supernatural makes sense in some way.
-
NS,
It doesn't matter which level you approach it on…
It matters a lot I think. The goldfish in a bowl models his reality – his “truths” if you like – on the basis of what he observes and (inasmuch as goldfish can reason) his reason. His belief “little plastic castle” is true for him on that basis, as it’s also true for any other goldfish that want to test his claim. Whereas his clerical chum asserting “goldfish god” offers nothing for him to get his teeth into (assuming that goldfish have teeth).
Similarity we model our reality using the tools available to us, but that’s not to say that we’re not just another layer of reality (different types of “goldfish”) with whole worlds or reality beyond our ken.
That’s all that’s being said here: we can reliably model answers just as the goldfish reliably models “castle” because those answers provide solutions that work, which is as good a definition of “true” as we have.
…and you are getting confused with invalidating the claims of theists, which is not something we are disagreeing on, and your own epistemic claims.
Perhaps, but the former entail absolutes whereas mine are provisional but ok…
That things appear to happen in a way that can be measured is fine. Again we don't disagree but what is actually happening I.e. are those things that happen what we classify as natural is not something that can be demonstrated by a method that makes that assumption.
Sorry, but you’re going to have to tease this out a little as it doesn’t scan. What do you mean by “actually” here? I’m not sure that we can ever know “actually” can we – how would we eliminate the goldfish problem for example?
I make no claim to an “actually” in any case, so I have nothing that would rely on it to demonstrate. All I do say is that, even when the epistemic bedrock is uncertainty, logical models that rest on it and that provide working solutions still give us “true enough to be useful” truths nonetheless.
Indeed the distinction itself, as already covered, between natural/supernatural is meaningless unless iris looked at from the idea that there any such thing as the supernatural. That's why I keep on mentioning Sriram's take that whatever happens and however it is caused is all part of the same process. Making a philosophic claim of an epistemic kind as regards natural is making a category error unless you think that the supernatural makes sense in some way.
I’ll have to unpick that:
“Indeed the distinction itself, as already covered, between natural/supernatural is meaningless unless iris looked at from the idea that there any such thing as the supernatural.”
But the meaninglessness (ie, inability to produce truths) of the term “supernatural” is itself the distinction! There’s nothing to model – and that’s what differentiates truth claims about the supernatural from truth claims about the natural. As soon as you try to examine the former term it dissolves. Natural vs supernatural is a non-white noise vs white noise issue.
“That's why I keep on mentioning Sriram's take that whatever happens and however it is caused is all part of the same process.”
How can explanations that are not even wrong be part of the same process as those that can be tested and found to be either right or wrong (albeit resting on….etc)?
Claims of fact that are found to be true or not true are fine, but claims of the supernatural aren’t part of that process at all – they’re inherently not truth apt.
"Making a philosophic claim of an epistemic kind as regards natural is making a category error unless you think that the supernatural makes sense in some way."
The only philosophic claim of an epistemic kind is that the natural is all we know of that we can reliably access and test (albeit… etc). The term “supernatural” doesn’t need to be meaningful at all for that purpose – “all we know of” just means “all we know of”. It’s complete in itself, and it doesn’t entail consideration of the supernatural for its force (a rejection that would, as you say, require the term “supernatural” to be meaningful). That’s the point – the universe appears to consist of various components that don’t (or didn’t) require some kind of intelligent intervention, so there’s nothing else to consider.
-
NS,
It matters a lot I think. The goldfish in a bowl models his reality – his “truths” if you like – on the basis of what he observes and (inasmuch as goldfish can reason) his reason. His belief “little plastic castle” is true for him on that basis, as it’s also true for any other goldfish that want to test his claim. Whereas his clerical chum asserting “goldfish god” offers nothing for him to get his teeth into (assuming that goldfish have teeth).
Similarity we model our reality using the tools available to us, but that’s not to say that we’re not just another layer of reality (different types of “goldfish”) with whole worlds or reality beyond our ken.
That’s all that’s being said here: we can reliably model answers just as the goldfish reliably models “castle” because those answers provide solutions that work, which is as good a definition of “true” as we have.
Perhaps, but the former entail absolutes whereas mine are provisional but ok…
Sorry, but you’re going to have to tease this out a little as it doesn’t scan. What do you mean by “actually” here? I’m not sure that we can ever know “actually” can we – how would we eliminate the goldfish problem for example?
I make no claim to an “actually” in any case, so I have nothing that would rely on it to demonstrate. All I do say is that, even when the epistemic bedrock is uncertainty, logical models that rest on it and that provide working solutions still give us “true enough to be useful” truths nonetheless.
I’ll have to unpick that:
“Indeed the distinction itself, as already covered, between natural/supernatural is meaningless unless iris looked at from the idea that there any such thing as the supernatural.”
But the meaninglessness (ie, inability to produce truths) of the term “supernatural” is itself the distinction! There’s nothing to model – and that’s what differentiates truth claims about the supernatural from truth claims about the natural. As soon as you try to examine the former term it dissolves. Natural vs supernatural is a non-white noise vs white noise issue.
“That's why I keep on mentioning Sriram's take that whatever happens and however it is caused is all part of the same process.”
How can explanations that are not even wrong be part of the same process as those that can be tested and found to be either right or wrong (albeit resting on….etc)?
Claims of fact that are found to be true or not true are fine, but claims of the supernatural aren’t part of that process at all – they’re inherently not truth apt.
"Making a philosophic claim of an epistemic kind as regards natural is making a category error unless you think that the supernatural makes sense in some way."
The only philosophic claim of an epistemic kind is that the natural is all we know of that we can reliably access and test (albeit… etc). The term “supernatural” doesn’t need to be meaningful at all for that purpose – “all we know of” just means “all we know of”. It’s complete in itself, and it doesn’t entail consideration of the supernatural for its force (a rejection that would, as you say, require the term “supernatural” to be meaningful). That’s the point – the universe appears to consist of various components that don’t (or didn’t) require some kind of intelligent intervention, so there’s nothing else to consider.
And again you are still hung up on the claims of those arguing for some distinction and defining your knowledge against that. To claim that natural us non white noise is to make a philosophic claim that the method cannot support. And again, to claim that the natural is all we know that is investigable is tautologous once you remove the idea of supernatural. It is a set if things that can be investigated. Given a method based on axioms about what can be investigated and what evidence is, then it is entirely circular. Claims to philosophic epistemics from it are nothing more than a description of the methodology.
Further given that we can investigate subjective judgements, even if not in terms of looking to establish anything inter subjective, your position seems to be that morality would have to be not natural.
-
NS,
And again you are still hung up on the claims of those arguing for some distinction and defining your knowledge against that. To claim that natural us non white noise is to make a philosophic claim that the method cannot support.
Again you seem to be relying here on some idea of the absolute, something I’ve expressly said (several times) is not what I claim at all. The natural is non-white noise only within the paradigm of a model of reality. The “I” that appears to be appears to be able to establish various truths that appear to enable me to navigate the world that “I” appear to inhabit. Strictly within that paradigm – and that paradigm only – I can then call certain things not white noise when they provide the solutions that enable me to do that.
When different claims on the other hand don’t do that because they’re incoherent, then the distinction between them as white noise and non-white noise statements is a helpful one.
And again, to claim that the natural is all we know that is investigable is tautologous once you remove the idea of supernatural. It is a set if things that can be investigated. Given a method based on axioms about what can be investigated and what evidence is, then it is entirely circular. Claims to philosophic epistemics from it are nothing more than a description of the methodology.
Yes, the natural (ie, that which does not appear to have had a non-natural intelligent something involved) is the set of things that can be investigated. Saying that it’s the only set of things we know of that can be investigated though doesn’t involved a tautology at all – it’s just a statement of observable fact. You don’t in other words need a meaningful definition of a different potential set for that statement to be true nonetheless. This is true as a general proposition – the statement “gravity is all we know of that causes apples to fall” for example doesn’t require a cogent explanation of pixies with thin strings theory to make it true on its own terms.
Had I not bothered with the “that we know of” and instead said something like, “the natural is all there is that can be investigated” on the other hand then you’d have had a point.
Further given that we can investigate subjective judgements, even if not in terms of looking to establish anything inter subjective, your position seems to be that morality would have to be not natural.
Say what now? How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might judge “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?
Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur.
-
NS,
Again you seem to be relying here on some idea of the absolute, something I’ve expressly said (several times) is not what I claim at all. The natural is non-white noise only within the paradigm of a model of reality. The “I” that appears to be appears to be able to establish various truths that appear to enable me to navigate the world that “I” appear to inhabit. Strictly within that paradigm – and that paradigm only – I can then call certain things not white noise when they provide the solutions that enable me to do that.
When different claims on the other hand don’t do that because they’re incoherent, then the distinction between them as white noise and non-white noise statements is a helpful one.
Yes, the natural (ie, that which does not appear to have had a non-natural intelligent something involved) is the set of things that can be investigated. Saying that it’s the only set of things we know of that can be investigated though doesn’t involved a tautology at all – it’s just a statement of observable fact. You don’t in other words need a meaningful definition of a different potential set for that statement to be true nonetheless. This is true as a general proposition – the statement “gravity is all we know of that causes apples to fall” for example doesn’t require a cogent explanation of pixies with thin strings theory to make it true on its own terms.
Had I not bothered with the “that we know of” and instead said something like, “the natural is all there is that can be investigated” on the other hand then you’d have had a point.
Say what now? How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?
Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur.
Just to address the last point, you've missed the what I was saying. It's not that the subjective can be investigated but if you take the position that we define the natural as that which we can investigate, and that morality is not investigable, then your position is morality is not natural.
-
The statement " the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable" ultimately rests on a circular definition and self-reference. This definition is fine to use on a day to day basis, but we can't use it philosophically to define "reality". It is the same as trying to prove that the universe can be described in maths. So, bhs's claim that he is using it practically, not as an absolute - should be fine.
The subjective can be investigated by the subject - whether anything that is found can be understood by someone else is a different matter. We could point out aspects of the Haywain that influence someone else into appreciating it where previously they did not. We may be able to determine how this process works, and indeed how views on morality can be influenced, but of-course, we will never know if the other "really" see or feel the same as us or not or if that "really" has any meaning.
-
NS,
Just to address the last point, you've missed the what I was saying. It's not that the subjective can be investigated but if you take the position that we define the natural as that which we can investigate, and that morality is not investigable, then your position is morality is not natural.
Thanks for clarifying. The clue I think is in the word "investigable": the speed of light in a vacuum is investigable in the sense that it can be approximated and the answer said to be "true"; morality, language, aesthetics etc on the other hand are in a different category because they're not truth apt. They can though be "investigated" inasmuch as the questions have meaning, and so we can intuit and reason our way to our opinions about them (albeit that in the end all we have is opinions).
That's qualitatively different I think from "God" or for that matter from "3479y397f", neither of which offers anything either to intuit or to reason about. Even to form an opinion about "God" you'd need to have a coherent question to address, as you would if, say, you were forming an opinion about capital punishment.
-
NS,
Thanks for clarifying. The clue I think is in the word "investigable": the speed of light in a vacuum is investigable in the sense that it can be approximated and the answer said to be "true"; morality, language, aesthetics etc on the other hand are in a different category because they're not truth apt. They can though be "investigated" inasmuch as the questions have meaning, and so we can intuit and reason our way to our opinions about them (albeit that in the end all we have is opinions).
That's qualitatively different I think from "God" or for that matter from "3479y397f", neither of which offers anything either to intuit or to reason about. Even to form an opinion about "God" you'd need to have a coherent question to address, as you would if, say, you were forming an opinion about capital punishment.
I still don't see how this addresses your position which is the natural is investigable, morality isn't investigable, therefore morality isn't natural.
-
Udayana,
The statement " the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable" ultimately rests on a circular definition and self-reference. This definition is fine to use on a day to day basis, but we can't use it philosophically to define "reality". It is the same as trying to prove that the universe can be described in maths. So, bhs's claim that he is using it practically, not as an absolute - should be fine.
The subjective can be investigated by the subject - whether anything that is found can be understood by someone else is a different matter. We could point out aspects of the Haywain that influence someone else into appreciating it where previously they did not. We may be able to determine how this process works, and indeed how views on morality can be influenced, but of-course, we will never know if the other "really" see or feel the same as us or not or if that "really" has any meaning.
Reply 143 addresses some of this I think. I don't use it to "define reality" at all - rather I use it to model a reality with no reference at all to an ultimate (or "actual) definition of it. Essentially it's a pragmatic approach to epistemology: if it provides solutions (or even opinions we use as solutions to coherent questions) then we label the proposition "true", or "my opinion"; you can't though assign a truth value or even an opinion to a proposition that's just incoherent.
-
NS,
I still don't see how this addresses your position which is the natural is investigable, morality isn't investigable, therefore morality isn't natural.
Because "investigable" is a broad term - it doesn't necessarily need to lead to an answer that's on the true/not true spectrum; it might just lead to a "this is my opinion on the matter" outcome. If, say, I asked you a moral question you hadn't considered before chances are you'd think about it for a bit, and then come up with an opinion that's a mix of intuition and reasoning (perhaps based on certain precepts, like equality).
On the other hand, if I asked you "uhyo877y 67tt 7y7866 i7o6?" you'd just say that the question is incoherent.
"God" falls into the latter category, not the former. The actual moral answer though isn't supernatural because it's not on the true/not true spectrum type of investigable.
-
NS,
Because "investigable" is a broad term - it doesn't necessarily need to lead to an answer that's on the true/not true spectrum; it might just lead to a "this is my opinion on the matter" outcome. If, say, I asked you a moral question you hadn't considered before chances are you'd think about it for a bit, and then come up with an opinion that's a mix of intuition and reasoning (perhaps based on certain precepts, like equality).
On the other hand, if I asked you "uhyo877y 67tt 7y7866 i7o6?" you'd just say that the question is incoherent.
"God" falls into the latter category, not the former. The actual moral answer though isn't supernatural because it's not on the true/not true spectrum type of investigable.
So when you said:
'How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might judge “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?
Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur. '
you didn't actually mean that there morality isn't 'investigable' which is what you have defined as necessary for the natural, and this distinction between investigated and investigable that you seemed to be seeking to draw earlier was a mistake?
-
NS,
So when you said:
'How would you propose to investigate subjective judgements? I might judge “The Haywain” to be a great painting (or to be a terrible one) – what would you have to investigate about that?
Unless there’s an answer to that, the morality point is a non-sequitur. '
you didn't actually mean that there morality isn't 'investigable' which is what you have defined as necessary for the natural, and this distinction between investigated and investigable that you seemed to be seeking to draw earlier was a mistake?
No, I was responding you your use of the term which you then used to suggest that I'd have to exclude moral questions from the natural. You can still "investigate" moral (or aesthetic) questions inasmuch as you can consider and respond to them with no claims to a truth, but you can't do that when the claim is simply incoherent. I'd be happy to use a word other than "investigable" if you prefer, but in principle at least that's what I take coherent to mean. "Considerable" (ie, capable of consideration) doesn't really work which is why I went for investigable.
-
NS,
No, I was responding you your use of the term which you then used to suggest that I'd have to exclude moral questions from the natural. You can still "investigate" moral (or aesthetic) questions inasmuch as you can consider and respond to them with no claims to a truth, but you can't do that when the claim is simply incoherent. I'd be happy to use a word other than "investigable" if you prefer, but in principle at least that's what I take coherent to mean. "Considerable" (ie, capable of consideration) doesn't really work which is why I went for investigable.
It's not about any use I make of terms. Let's take this slowly.
Is your position that the natural is what we know to be investigable (your terns)?
Is morality investigable?
-
NS,
It's not about any use I make of terms. Let's take this slowly.
Is your position that the natural is what we know to be investigable (your terns)?
For want of a better term, yes. "Coherent" is fine though, as is "capable of consideration".
Is morality investigable?
Yes, provided of course you use the term in the sense of "capable of consideration such that I can form an opinion on it".
Incidentally, you seem to have ignored the earlier discussion about the significance of the "that we know of" part. Are we now agreed that the "that we know of" is valid whether or not we could ever find some meaning in potential other explanations? If, say, I interviewed everyone on the planet and every one of them said, "yes, the natural is all I know of that I can investigate/consider and respond to" do you still think that we'd have to think "supernatural" to be meaningful for that conclusion to hold?
-
Thought for all:-
'If you set fire to a straw man would it literally go up in smoke with nothing left to show it existed?'
-
Thought for all:-
'If you set fire to a straw man would it literally go up in smoke with nothing left to show it existed?'
Would there not be a pile of ash left? :-\
-
God must be having a field day, if it exists. All these terrible atrocities to 'enjoy' whilst sitting on its white cloud with its feet up. It must be really proud of itself, after all it is supposed to be responsible for creating human nature. >:(
-
God must be having a field day, if it exists. All these terrible atrocities to 'enjoy' whilst sitting on its white cloud with its feet up. It must be really proud of itself, after all it is supposed to be responsible for creating human nature. >:(
Reminded me of this:
http://tinyurl.com/ycoruemu
-
Reminded me of this:
http://tinyurl.com/ycoruemu
Very true, where was god when its very own 'chosen' people were being put into those death camps? >:(
-
If god exists and is responsible for creation including humans and their nature, ...
So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.
it is responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world.
Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
If god is omnipotent, as is claimed by believers, it must have known exactly what would happen when it invented badness as well as goodness.
Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness
That being the case why did god want humans to suffer, does it get a perverted thrill when observing human distress?
Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!
Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?
-
So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.
Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness
Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!
Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?
when you understand what a hypothetical means, and don't misrepresent how they work, please repost.
-
when you understand what a hypothetical means, and don't misrepresent how they work, please repost.
Indeed. The word If ... makes everything that comes after it a hypothetical scenario, not a statement or declaration or assertion of belief. A statement such as:
So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless ...Given that you are assuming that God created human beings
is - deliberately or not; I don't know - a misrepresentation of that hypothetical scenario.
This is a normal and common feature of the English language and shouldn't require explanation, so I'm inclined to suspect deliberate and conscious misrepresentation for your own ends.
-
Worse is the asking for someone positing a hypothetical to demonstrate the truth of how it might work.
-
So you are assuming the existence of God and that He created human beings then, otherwise the rest of your post is meaningless.
Given that you are assuming that God created human beings, you first have to establish accuracy as to how God is allegedly responsible for causing all the suffering there has been in this world
Again, if you are assuming that God created human beings, you need to demonstrate when and how God invented badness
Do you? Your caricature sounds more like something of your own creation!
Given that you've clocked up 20+ years on forums railing against God Most High, do you get some sort of perverted thrill out of it, to use your own words?
I am not assuming god exists, I was asking a hypothetical question. I wonder if you have ever actually read the Bible without wearing rose tinted spectacles? The things attributed to god don't do it any credit whatsoever
-
I am not assuming god exists, I was asking a hypothetical question.
Which is flawed
I wonder if you have ever actually read the Bible without wearing rose tinted spectacles? The things attributed to god don't do it any credit whatsoever
Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.
-
Which is flawed
Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.
Not that you have shown this to be true, merely shown you have no understanding of the concept of a hypothetical.
-
Not that you have shown this to be true, merely shown you have no understanding of the concept of a hypothetical.
Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
-
Which is flawed
Which just serves to illustrate why your question is flawed.
Why is it flawed?
-
Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
If Jesus made that statement it was without any evidence to back it up.
-
Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation? The words in her post betray her true intentions. It's a similar tactic to those used by those trying to trick the Lord Jesus with their 'hypothetical' questions, e.g. here in Matthew 22:
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. 27 Last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her.”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Brcause that us how hypotheticals work. Let's take an example so you can see where your confusion lies. In the 1970 World Cup, Gordon Banks wasn't well enough to play in goal for England in the quarter final and they lost 3-2. Many people consider that if Banks had played (that's the hypothetical) in the quarter final (that's the real life situation) then they would have won.
-
Floo,
Why is it flawed?
It wasn't. It's actually an old construction - a shorthand for, "how can you maintain a belief in a benevolent god capable of intervening when the evidence of the Holocaust suggests otherwise?"
There have been various answers to it ("where were you?", "God was in the suffering", "who are we to question His deeper intentions?" etc) that all seem casuistic to me when compared with the more obvious answer of, "I can't".
-
Sword,
Then why does Floo ask a 'hypothetical' and then try and apply it to a real situation?
Because, outside of maths, that's generally how hypothetical questions are framed.
-
The traditional defences of God in the face of suffering don't impress me. I think we have to let go of at least one of the three omnis: potent, scient and benevolent. The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power. Therefore, I think we can say that, while God is very powerful, God is not all-powerful. One traditional defence of God is human free-will, but that hardly explains natural evil. However, if we argue that all of creation has something analogous to free-will; that matter is intransigent stuff by its very nature and even God can't do with it exactly as God likes; we may be getting somewhere. How if God created the universe, including the natural laws, in such a way that evolution would eventually lead to us, or at any rate to intelligent free agents, but couldn't stop things like plague, cancer and various genetic horrors from happening, but decided that the good of creating us outweighed the unavoidable suffering? The alternative, after all, would be non-existance.
-
Yes, frankly 'God does what he can' rather than 'God can do anything but doesn't because reasons' makes more sense if you believe that your god is one of love.
Not exactly what Christianity teaches but a way to try and fit a square peg in a round hole. I thought like this myself once.
-
The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power.
There is a view that the expression 'El Shaddai' meant "God Almighty" and that Elohim meant "the all-powerful One", based on the usage of the word "el" in certain verses to denote power or might (Genesis 31:29, Nehemiah 5:5).
-
Is it really too much to ask of Floo that she refer to God as he (or she, if she prefers) rather than "it"? Such gratuitous attempts to offend are a bit adolescent for a mature woman.
-
Is it really too much to ask of Floo that she refer to God as he (or she, if she prefers) rather than "it"? Such gratuitous attempts to offend are a bit adolescent for a mature woman.
Why?
How do you know that it's an attempt to offend, given that - to me at any rate - the idea of gods in itself is absurd but the idea of gods with human gender is equally so. 'It' seems exactly right. A table doesn't have gender either; we also refer to tables as it, not he or she. The idea of a god not only with a gender but a male one at that, naturally, given who did the writing of this tripe, is obsolescent bollocks.
-
As we have no idea should god exist if it is male, female or genderless, it is reasonable to refer to it as IT.
Steve H gets more upset if I happen to agree with something he says, so he can't actually have a go at me. I am not intending to offend anyone, unlike him, whose attempts to offend me are failing. I reckon he has returned to R&E as he missed being b*tchy to me now I have left the other forum on which we both posted! ;D
-
How about avoiding pronouns altogether, and writing "God" (or "god", if you insist) each time?
Bitchy? Moi? ;D
-
How about avoiding pronouns altogether, and writing "God" (or "god", if you insist) each time?
Bitchy? Moi? ;D
I will continue to refer to god as it. If you find it offensive I suggest you ignore my posts.
-
You could compromise and call it the artist formerly known as God.
-
SteveH,
The traditional defences of God in the face of suffering don't impress me. I think we have to let go of at least one of the three omnis: potent, scient and benevolent. The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power. Therefore, I think we can say that, while God is very powerful, God is not all-powerful.
Or rather, “we” can say that that’s what the Bible implies on the matter. You have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate this "God" objectively.
One traditional defence of God is human free-will, but that hardly explains natural evil. However, if we argue that all of creation has something analogous to free-will; that matter is intransigent stuff by its very nature and even God can't do with it exactly as God likes; we may be getting somewhere.
How would you propose to argue that a god that can create an entire universe can’t also control everything about that universe? Are you suggesting a sort of Frankenstein’s monster effect?
How if God created the universe, including the natural laws, in such a way that evolution would eventually lead to us, or at any rate to intelligent free agents, but couldn't stop things like plague, cancer and various genetic horrors from happening, but decided that the good of creating us outweighed the unavoidable suffering?
Well, a semi-competent god is one approach I suppose though, as I understand it, that would fly pretty much in the face of any stripe of Christian orthodoxy.
And for whom would that be “good” in any case? Good for a voyeuristic god with a ringside seat at the suffering he’d unleashed, or good for us on a sort of cost/benefit basis? If the latter, surely a less self aware creature with a good sense of enjoyment but no sense of death or suffering would have been a more “loving” creation wouldn’t it?
The alternative, after all, would be non-existance.
As we’d not be there to experience it though, so what?
-
You could compromise and call it the artist formerly known as God.
Hmm! That would suggest that God had copyright problems...perhaps something to do with Satan being in control, somewhere along the line. :D
-
Hmm! That would suggest that God had copyright problems...perhaps something to do with Satan being in control, somewhere along the line. :D
;D
-
The traditional defences of God in the face of suffering don't impress me. I think we have to let go of at least one of the three omnis: potent, scient and benevolent. The Bible explicitly says that God is love. It nowhere says that God is power. Therefore, I think we can say that, while God is very powerful, God is not all-powerful. One traditional defence of God is human free-will, but that hardly explains natural evil. However, if we argue that all of creation has something analogous to free-will; that matter is intransigent stuff by its very nature and even God can't do with it exactly as God likes; we may be getting somewhere. How if God created the universe, including the natural laws, in such a way that evolution would eventually lead to us, or at any rate to intelligent free agents, but couldn't stop things like plague, cancer and various genetic horrors from happening, but decided that the good of creating us outweighed the unavoidable suffering? The alternative, after all, would be non-existance.
33 God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.
Omnipresent:-
Psalm 139: 7-12 Jeremiah 23:23-24
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
All Powerful Omnipotent. Genesis 17:1; Job 42:1-2; Jeremiah 32:17.
17 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Definitely ALL-POWERFUL
Omniscient Knows all things.
Psalm 139:1-6; Hebrews 4:12-13
God above Space and Time eternal and unchanging.
Isaiah 44:6 ,alachi 3:6 James 1:17.
So the bible does tell us God is powerful.
-
Luke 1:37King James Version (KJV)
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
The truth cannot be escaped. God is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do.
-
Luke 1:37King James Version (KJV)
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
The truth cannot be escaped. God is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do.
Can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?
-
http://crossexamined.org/can-god-create-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-cannot-lift-it/
-
Luke 1:37King James Version (KJV)
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
The truth cannot be escaped. God is all powerful and there is nothing he cannot do.
An ASSERTION with no evidence to support it!
-
http://crossexamined.org/can-god-create-a-rock-so-heavy-that-he-cannot-lift-it/
So Sassy over egged the assertion then?
There are things that god can not do.
-
So Sassy over egged the assertion then?
There are things that god can not do.
I think the link is fairly self explanatory - anything that can be done this omnipotent god can do. The stone he couldn't lift is a logical paradox based around the concept of ignoring logic in the first place.
-
33 God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.
Omnipresent:-
Psalm 139: 7-12 Jeremiah 23:23-24
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
All Powerful Omnipotent. Genesis 17:1; Job 42:1-2; Jeremiah 32:17.
17 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Definitely ALL-POWERFUL
Omniscient Knows all things.
Psalm 139:1-6; Hebrews 4:12-13
God above Space and Time eternal and unchanging.
Isaiah 44:6 ,alachi 3:6 James 1:17.
So the bible does tell us God is powerful.
That lot's O K Sass but until you can establish it as evidence based, it's just another load of fictional ramblings, especially the mythical, magical and superstition based parts thereof.
ippy
-
I think the link is fairly self explanatory - anything that can be done this omnipotent god can do. The stone he couldn't lift is a logical paradox based around the concept of ignoring logic in the first place.
Can he tell a lie ie sin? If he really really wanted to?
-
33 God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.
Omnipresent:-
Psalm 139: 7-12 Jeremiah 23:23-24
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
23 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.
All Powerful Omnipotent. Genesis 17:1; Job 42:1-2; Jeremiah 32:17.
17 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,
2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.
17 Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:
Definitely ALL-POWERFUL
Omniscient Knows all things.
Psalm 139:1-6; Hebrews 4:12-13
God above Space and Time eternal and unchanging.
Isaiah 44:6 ,alachi 3:6 James 1:17.
So the bible does tell us God is powerful.
There's not much point in quoting the Bible to people who don't believe in its complete infallibility.
-
There's not much point in quoting the Bible to people who don't believe in its complete infallibility.
Well, if Sass had taken that on board, it would certainly have freed up quite a bit of her time. It probably wouldn't have freed up much of other posters' time, since I imagine that when Sass delivers one of her interminable screeds and/or quotes, they just switch off.
Ah, but isn't it all the grand tradition of the "Christian Witness" (to give her the benefit of the doubt)?