What Is God Made From?

[Jack Knave]

I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.

They knew they were committing suicide, except the children.  Clearly they believed something to make them do it and according to Alan, that means what they believed was true.

Some at least weren't willing partners and wanted to escape and live. What Jones did whilst they were in the US, and was offering them a 'new life' and the 'promise land', was to get them to pool their collective wealth which was then under his control. When he planned to go to South America none of them had any personal finance, no homes, and were basically shipped out their under duress - they were trapped, they had no choice.

Many knew what the potion was and had no wish to die but Jones' henchmen forced many to do it. Many knew because Jones had a dummy run on the act to see who was 'loyal' to him.

You miss the point totally.  Some people were didn't want to do it but some did.  The fact that some people willingly went to their deaths believing in Jones tells us (according to Alan) that their beliefs were true.

You said 'they' not 'some'. They implies all. I don't recall those who willing followed Jones to his ultimate act as the programme I watched had the emotional survivors recounting those events and that is what tends to stick in ones mind.

As for Alan's puzzling logic it is like trying to squeeze clothing into a case, a little bit keeps popping out even though you are sure you have finally got the right amount to fit in it. I reckon he has a homunculus inside it pushing the clothing out!

[jeremyp]

You said 'they' not 'some'.

It makes no material difference to the point.  You only need one for the point to be correct.

They implies all. I don't recall those who willing followed Jones to his ultimate act as the programme I watched had the emotional survivors recounting those events and that is what tends to stick in ones mind.

Of course the people that drank the Kool-Aid (yeah, yeah, I know it wasn't real Kool-Aid) in the metaphorical sense are not here to give their side of the story in a documentary.

As for Alan's puzzling logic it is like trying to squeeze clothing into a case, a little bit keeps popping out even though you are sure you have finally got the right amount to fit in it. I reckon he has a homunculus inside it pushing the clothing out!

There's nothing sophisticated about what he does.  He merely applies logic selectively.

[BashfulAnthony]

Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?

Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!

Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs! 

I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life.  Silly Muslims!   Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo

There are some  thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions:  love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption    Did you not know those things about Christianity?

If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great.  Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that?  Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?

You are such a negative, not to mention derisive, poster.  Who said anything about "stick and carrot"?  I believe in the teaching of Jesus, and to anyone with even a tiny understanding of those teachings  (clearly, not you!) it is all about love.  Read it up.

[jjohnjil]

Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?

Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!

Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs! 

I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life.  Silly Muslims!   Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo

There are some  thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions:  love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption    Did you not know those things about Christianity?

If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great.  Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that?  Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?

You are such a negative, not to mention derisive, poster.  Who said anything about "stick and carrot"?  I believe in the teaching of Jesus, and to anyone with even a tiny understanding of those teachings  (clearly, not you!) it is all about love.  Read it up.

KISSY KISSY!  I knew you were all heart and loved me, Bashful!

[BashfulAnthony]

Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?

Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!

Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs! 

I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life.  Silly Muslims!   Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo

There are some  thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions:  love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption    Did you not know those things about Christianity?

If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great.  Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that?  Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?

You are such a negative, not to mention derisive, poster.  Who said anything about "stick and carrot"?  I believe in the teaching of Jesus, and to anyone with even a tiny understanding of those teachings  (clearly, not you!) it is all about love.  Read it up.

KISSY KISSY!  I knew you were all heart and loved me, Bashful!

I thought you knew that already!

[Alan Burns]

Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?

Extreme Islamist leaders brainwash their followers to believe that the only guaranteed way to enter heaven is to be killed in a holy war, and this is why they get so many enthusiastic volunteers to become suicide bombers.  The tragedy is that the bombers will discover the devasting truth that there is no short cut to heaven, but by then it will be too late.

[cyberman]

that's what you try to claim in order to evade the hard questions.

I don't recall making any such claim. Making stuff up right off the bat, Shaker!

[Alien]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

[Alien]

I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it

Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".

Or have I misunderstood him?

I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.

No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).

Which is basically what I said!!![/quote ]Really. Read my last sentence again, perhaps.

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

To quote Bart Ehrman (about his mentor and friend, Bruce Metzger)

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

[jeremyp]

However, who lied to Paul?

Peter.

Who lied to Peter?

Maybe Peter made it all up.  Maybe he was genuinely deluded.

Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Ditto.  Of course, Acts is a pretty unreliable story, maybe they are fictional characters.

[Leonard James]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

[Gordon]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

[Jack Knave]

I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it

Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".

Or have I misunderstood him?

I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.

No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).

Which is basically what I said!!![/quote ]Really. Read my last sentence again, perhaps.

And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.

To quote Bart Ehrman (about his mentor and friend, Bruce Metzger)

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.  The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.

And I'm still waiting for a reply for my 482.

And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?

[floo]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

It is a scary thought that some believe the deity is directing their thoughts and act on them out of blind obedience! Abraham is a case in point when he thought the deity was asking him to sacrifice his son. 

[Alien]

However, who lied to Paul?

Peter.

Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.

Who lied to Peter?

Maybe Peter made it all up.  Maybe he was genuinely deluded.

What about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.

Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Ditto.  Of course, Acts is a pretty unreliable story, maybe they are fictional characters.

I appreciate that I still need to come back to you on that lecture at Yale (or wherever) about Acts. Have you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?

[Alien]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

[Alien]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

[Alien]

Alien (your 476)

I appreciate that, but I was asked why I am a Christian. You are not convinced by the evidence, but I am.

and

I was asked why I am a Christian and this is part of it.


1} OK, point taken. I was approaching it as an argument but yes my original question was what made you convert; though weren't you a Christian in your childhood and something about a colliery disaster that made your parents question things?

That's right. Abervan.

Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.

2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".

How is that more appropriate?

The word God has different connotations and implications for people, by that I mean, they unconsciously attach their preconceived ideas to it. As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.

No, I haven't "admitted" that. If it were something physical, the start of the universe would not be the start of the universe, if you see what I mean.

 No, it is not disingenuous and deceitful. I have never claimed that, say, the Kalam argument takes us to the Christian definition of God on its own, but gets us as far as above. The argument from objective morality, if correct, shows us that this "God" is a source of morality, so now we have a spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, plausibly personal, moral entity for whom the term "God" seems, to me at least, reasonable. With the bit about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would take us to the Christian God from that generic understanding of God.

3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.

How?

Yes, that is what atheists tend to say. Atheists, not scientists. That was the point I was making. You wrote, "And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true". I didn't make any claim about scientists.  - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."

Who says this? It's rubbish as it makes no sense.

It does make sense. In #92 I wrote
"b)   If the universe has an explanation of its existence, God exists and is that explanation.
i.   This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation. "

If we can agree it does make sense, then I'll supply some names.[/color]

4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.

Call it what you like, but it would be timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful and plausibly personal. That's a lowest common denominator idea of God in most people's use of the word.

You sound like a YECer arguing against evolution

5} Good punch but I'm not down nor winded. Evolution is not a religion

And nor have I claimed it is.

and is taken as a best fit for now and subject to change should further evidence show it to be not correct on some points. People do not fundamentally live, die and base their lives on it but only as a plausible explanation based on the evidence to date. For such fundamental issues as shaping ones life and principles I would need to see and have personal experience of the matters in question.

Why do you think this statement of yours here is relevant. I have never argued against evolution.

As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.

That's rather patronising. Because you were not there to see this Jesus fellow (or Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Napolean or Elizabeth I or Ghengis Khan am I to understand that you are uncertain about them existing and the major events of their lives?

 Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.

6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how

Why is that is a better explanation?

and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?

No. That's a silly question. In any situation we are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility etc. Why do you only bring this up when speaking about Jesus? Because it would rock your world if it were true?

Then you have misunderstood probability too. Perhaps a knowledgeable non-Christian on here would explain about probability. Me doing it would run the risk of look like it being "sophistry and playing with words." If anyone does explain it, then perhaps the following will help.


7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.

Really? Why do you claim this?

For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.


8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can.

Yet you and I do this all the time in our lives? Do you know for certain that you will survive a bus trip or driving into work? You seem very inconsistent.

Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.

Why do you think that is pertinent to what I wrote?

  Would you mind restating your case on this as I am not completely sure what you are referring to.

9} Actually looking at them again there aren't any real issues worth bothering with there. They may come up later if need be but aren't worth it now.

OK.

[Jack Knave]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things.

[Alien]

...
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.

I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.

And I'm still waiting for a reply for my 482.

I've now replied to it.

And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?

That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.

[Jack Knave]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.

[Alien]

"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.

So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?

It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things.

Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?

[Alien]

Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.

You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.

That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.

Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?

Who knows, and that is the point.

The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
     

Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?

But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.

Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.

[Jack Knave]

Alan (Your post 570)

Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.

2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".

How is that more appropriate?

This is one issue I'd like to get sorted out so I'd like it to be done as a separate line of posts. The context is the philosophical arguments you gave on your post 92.

The word God is not a neutral term. It means different things to different people depending on their religion and even factions within religions and even to people who may not be practicing a religion may still hold some notions of the word God because of their culture. These various meanings and notions to these people form some manner of loose definitions of God for them which are not inherent in the philosophical arguments you have presented in 92. It is therefore disingenuous to use the term God in this context and effectively surreptitiously makes a link to your Christian God, from these philosophical arguments, which is not there and is unfounded.

There is nothing in philosophy which can deal with the issue of God as the word is specific to religions alone, where a particular, though not always full, definition and notion of it is given depending on the religion in question. The best that philosophy can do is come up with some vague term like "Something", as God is a totally unknown quantity and lacks even the basic notional outlines.

You have to admit that the word God to you means something specific which is related to your Christian faith and you therefore have to admit that the word God to others of different faiths will mean something else and therefore it can't be used as a generic term as you have used it in 92. I hope you will agree and amend the material you have presented in 92.

[Jack Knave]

Alan (your 570 cont.)

from 2} As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.

No, I haven't "admitted" that. If it were something physical, the start of the universe would not be the start of the universe, if you see what I mean.

Firstly, I would use the word "Something" instead of God. Also, the force or energy I'm referring to could be something non-physical, but the Kalam argument has a lot of assumptions in it which I don't agree with. One, time is a metaphysical notion of our mind created by our memories and there is no reason why matter etc. could not have always exited. Are quantum fields matter/physical? Is energy physical or of something 'solid'?

-----------------------
3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.

How?

If the universe came about by a 'force' then forces are not moral actions. When a chemical reaction occurs it has no moral status. If a tree falls on you that action is not a moral one it is just your bad luck. It is quite reasonable to think that whatever brought about the universe it had no moral status.
---------------------
 4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.

Call it what you like, but it would be timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful and plausibly personal. That's a lowest common denominator idea of God in most people's use of the word.

Your last sentence has the word God in it and as I have explained in another post you can't use the word God in the context of a philosophical argument.

As I explained about morals with regards to 'forces' so it is true of the idea of being personal. The tree falling on you does not do it from a personal consideration, it is impersonal. There is no reason to assume that the 'forces' or whatever that brought about the universe had any personality or individuality or character to them/it.

As I see it time is a product of our memory. Light travelling at the speed of L in a vacuum is everywhere, hence the ideas of general relativity, and so space cesses to have meaning. Non-material I've explained above; quantum fields? And being immensely power, well that is just a relative term.
------------------
5} As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.

That's rather patronising. Because you were not there to see this Jesus fellow (or Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Napolean or Elizabeth I or Ghengis Khan am I to understand that you are uncertain about them existing and the major events of their lives?

What I'm saying is that whether they did exist or not does not govern how I live my life. It is only a possible account of history which has little to no consequence for my life; hence for my amusement. If they are not happy with my attitude then they are free to come and tell me. 
-------------------
6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how

Why is that is a better explanation?

Because it is the truth. You know?...the truth will set you free!
-------------------
6 cont.} and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?

No. That's a silly question. In any situation we are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility etc. Why do you only bring this up when speaking about Jesus? Because it would rock your world if it were true?

I do not just bring this up when speaking about Jesus. You only think that because that is the only time we engage in any significant way. What would it rock my world?
----------------
7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.

Really? Why do you claim this?

Because that is what happens in real life. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our prior speculation, because we do not understand it fully, that we come up with these probable outcome events. When we know what will happen we do not apply our probability theories as this would be pointless.
----------------
 8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can.

Yet you and I do this all the time in our lives? Do you know for certain that you will survive a bus trip or driving into work? You seem very inconsistent.

You need reliable information to make judgements. Information you personally know to be reliable. What some geezer wrote 2000 years ago is not reliable. This is the problem with man kind is that his hubris takes him into impossible areas like the EU project and the banking system and so on. He thinks he know but in fact he know nearly bugger all, and is then surprised when everything goes tits up!!!

So just as I take risks in my life based on past experience and on as much information that I can acquire so you are saying taking the NT as the truth is nothing more than a risk; chance taking, the throw the dice? That your faith is nothing more than a "what if", "whatever", see how the runes fall, a blind grab at chance?
---------------------
8 cont.} Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.

Why do you think that is pertinent to what I wrote?

It's like Zeno's paradox about halving the distance to the finish line. This is a time restrictive action and so you will never get there. It is a stupid paradox because it is sheer bollocks.