Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Ah, the trilemma. Did he actually call it ‘ the Trilemma’ or formulate it into some apparent formal scientismic rule? What is laughably weak about it?

The objection to it as far as I am aware of it is that it is really a quadrillemma and because he missed a possibility out, what he did say can be discarded. That is though, atheists wankfantasy.

If we examine what Lewis said we see that he says that Jesus and those who claim he is God cannot just be mistaken, there must be more to it. I move that what Lewis is suggesting is that despite politically correct sentiment from skeptics to the contrary, Jesus and his followers throughout history can rightly and logically be suspected of deliberate con or mental abberation which prevents them seeing Christianity as obvious nonsense OR their claims are correct. That boils down to mad, bad or true although you could I suppose chuck ‘sad’ in there as well.

Or mistaken, or the reports we have are not accurate, or .....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If we examine what Lewis said we see that he says that Jesus and those who claim he is God cannot just be mistaken, there must be more to it.

Why?

I move that what Lewis is suggesting is that despite politically correct sentiment from skeptics to the contrary, Jesus and his followers throughout history can rightly and logically be suspected of deliberate con or mental abberation which prevents them seeing Christianity as obvious nonsense OR their claims are correct. That boils down to mad, bad or true although you could I suppose chuck ‘sad’ in there as well.

No, just mistaken is all that’s necessary. No doubt there were deliberate bad actors along the way too, but mistake is all that’s needed to start the ball rolling. Just for funsies, forget your pick of the available deities for now and consider instead the countless other faiths that started as cults and then caught the wind to achieve widespread popularity. Were their early adherents “mad, bad or true” too in your opinion, or just credulous? 

[Dicky Underpants]

Our professor thinks more clearly.

[jeremyp]

Ah, the trilemma. Did he actually call it ‘ the Trilemma’ or formulate it into some apparent formal scientismic rule? What is laughably weak about it?

Because it relies on the opponent's cultural reluctance to label Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. I'd go with liar btw, if I'm restricted to Lewis's three options.

Yes, there are other possibilities that Lewis leaves out. It is strange, for example, that he doesn't consider "fictional" given that he made a lot of money out of a lion that was put to death and then resurrected.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because it relies on the opponent's cultural reluctance to label Jesus as a liar or a lunatic.

Spot on - not only is Lewis either stupid or dishonest in failing to include the other obvious option, but by narrowing to these three he requires people to be derogatory about Jesus (which is culturally difficult) or ascribe Jesus as god.

But of course it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Jesus didn't lie, wasn't mad, wasn't god, but was misrepresented by those who came after him.

And also someone might genuinely believe something that isn't true, that wouldn't make that person mad, or bad ... just wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it relies on the opponent's cultural reluctance to label Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. I'd go with liar btw, if I'm restricted to Lewis's three options.

Yes, there are other possibilities that Lewis leaves out. It is strange, for example, that he doesn't consider "fictional" given that he made a lot of money out of a lion that was put to death and then resurrected.

I think the point is a lot of alternative reasons just reduce to mad bad and sad and I for one haven't been presented by anything that doesn't reduce to "Being mistaken"

Having a cultural reluctance to expressing one could consider Jesus and/ or Christians as mad or bad or sad is precisely my point. In discussion I think we can at least throw off the tammells of politeness in our own hearts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the point is a lot of alternative reasons just reduce to mad bad and sad and I for one haven't been presented by anything that doesn't reduce to "Being mistaken"

Why is that a problem for you? Lots of people have been mistaken about lots of supposed deities at lots of times and in lots of places.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spot on - not only is Lewis either stupid or dishonest in failing to include the other obvious option, but by narrowing to these three he requires people to be derogatory about Jesus (which is culturally difficult) or ascribe Jesus as god.

But of course it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Jesus didn't lie, wasn't mad, wasn't god, but was misrepresented by those who came after him.

And also someone might genuinely believe something that isn't true, that wouldn't make that person mad, or bad ... just wrong.

I get that you are trying to make atheists moist by claiming Lewis as stupid or dishonest something you haven't really demonstrated. He thought all solutions to the Christ problem reduce to mad bad or true. You don't.

I think you are going for the fallacy that if you can come up with more ways of saying he's wrong he us wrong. The non fallacious route is to come out with different reasons that don't actually boil down to the same thing.

On another matter that has arisen out of your posts.
Will you now admit, after your agreement with Jeremy concerning cultural conditioning, that, following your own logic you and other agnostic and nonreligious are so because of your culture and upbringing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is that a problem for you? Lots of people have been mistaken about lots of supposed deities at lots of times and in lots of places.

So what?

But is the mistake down to dishonesty or mental aberration and not playing with a full hand as it were.

Lewis sees this in terms of the individual themselves asking what they believe of Jesus. You I would imagine see this in terms of game theory or some such thing.

If you can't be arsed to look at the tri, quadri or whatever "lemma" then IMHO you're betting the house on Atheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I get that you are trying to make atheists moist by claiming Lewis as stupid or dishonest something you haven't really demonstrated. He thought all solutions to the Christ problem reduce to mad bad or true. You don't.

Bizarre. What's actually been demonstrated is that Lewis's reasoning was flawed. It's not difficult to understand why.

[ProfessorDavey]

I get that you are trying to make atheists moist by claiming Lewis as stupid or dishonest something you haven't really demonstrated. He thought all solutions to the Christ problem reduce to mad bad or true. You don't.

But he has no way of legitimately justifying those three options alone.

The claims he is referring to are in the NT - are you really claiming that there is no possibility that what is in the NT isn't an exaggeration or a misunderstanding of what actually happened. That wouldn't necessarily be deliberate or dishonest - the ability to retain accurate information as it is passed from generation to generation is highly challenging. So it wouldn't necessarily be bad, or mad, just wrong.

Do you really think it impossible that the writers of the NT were wrong in their beliefs, although their belief was genuine (but wrong). Try it this way Vlad - were the people who in the 14thC believed the sun went around the earth mad or bad ... or were they just plain wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But is the mistake down to dishonesty or mental aberration and not playing with a full hand as it were.

If it is a mistake then why it’s a mistake isn’t particularly relevant.

Lewis sees this in terms of the individual themselves asking what they believe of Jesus. You I would imagine see this in terms of game theory or some such thing.

Then you’d imagine wrongly. If the people concerned believed what Jesus said (or reportedly said) they’d only need to be credulous to be mistaken, not scheming.   

If you can't be arsed to look at the tri, quadri or whatever "lemma" then IMHO you're betting the house on Atheism.

What are you trying to argue here?

[Maeght]

I get that you are trying to make atheists moist by claiming Lewis as stupid or dishonest something you haven't really demonstrated. He thought all solutions to the Christ problem reduce to mad bad or true. You don't.

I think you are going for the fallacy that if you can come up with more ways of saying he's wrong he us wrong. The non fallacious route is to come out with different reasons that don't actually boil down to the same thing.

On another matter that has arisen out of your posts.
Will you now admit, after your agreement with Jeremy concerning cultural conditioning, that, following your own logic you and other agnostic and nonreligious are so because of your culture and upbringing?

You have a very odd view of atheists.

[Maeght]

I think the point is a lot of alternative reasons just reduce to mad bad and sad and I for one haven't been presented by anything that doesn't reduce to "Being mistaken"

Having a cultural reluctance to expressing one could consider Jesus and/ or Christians as mad or bad or sad is precisely my point. In discussion I think we can at least throw off the tammells of politeness in our own hearts.

Being genuinely mistaken isn't mad or bad. No idea where sad came from.

[Alan Burns]

And you would not be alone in claiming that God made himself known to us through the direct revelation of angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad.  So what ? This is what you and the others mentioned would likely have been claiming had they been born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country.  Such beliefs are not evidence, they are cultural memes.

There are many belief systems, some more plausible than others, but my choice to stick with Christian faith is entirely evidence based - not on childhood indoctrination.

I presume that the belief system that you adhere to is based on there being no need for God  - a supreme creator which brought everything into existence.  I can easily reject this because of my knowledge that random forces are destructive - not creative, and my knowledge of material behaviour leads me to conclude that the conscious freedom I enjoy requires more than predictable material reactions.  And there is the dilemma of trying to figure out how anything came into existence from nothing.

Other belief systems can be shown to be misguided attempts to discover God by relying too much on our own limited human knowledge.

The Islamic faith appears to be entirely dependent on one personal testimony which purports to be a follow up on the Christian bible but contradicts much of the teachings in the New Testament.

So I will stick with my Christian faith which in essence is God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has been confirmed in so many ways through my own and other people's life changing experience of accepting Jesus into your life.

[Maeght]

There are many belief systems, some more plausible than others, but my choice to stick with Christian faith is entirely evidence based - not on childhood indoctrination.

I presume that the belief system that you adhere to is based on there being no need for God  - a supreme creator which brought everything into existence.  I can easily reject this because of my knowledge that random forces are destructive - not creative, and my knowledge of material behaviour leads me to conclude that the conscious freedom I enjoy requires more than predictable material reactions.  And there is the dilemma of trying to figure out how anything came into existence from nothing.

Other belief systems can be shown to be misguided attempts to discover God by relying too much on our own limited human knowledge.

The Islamic faith appears to be entirely dependent on one personal testimony which purports to be a follow up on the Christian bible but contradicts much of the teachings in the New Testament.

So I will stick with my Christian faith which in essence is God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has been confirmed in so many ways through my own and other people's life changing experience of accepting Jesus into your life.

Lives changing is evidence for the power of belief not for the truth of those beliefs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There are many belief systems, some more plausible than others, but my choice to stick with Christian faith is entirely evidence based - not on childhood indoctrination.

Which is exactly what people from different faiths would say too, and besides so far at least you’ve never managed to produce any of this supposed evidence here in any case. 

I presume that the belief system that you adhere to is based on there being no need for God  - a supreme creator which brought everything into existence.

That’s not a “belief system” as such – it’s just the finding that the reasoning attempted thus far to justify the claim “god” is wrong. 

I can easily reject this because of my knowledge that random forces are destructive - not creative,…

And I can easily reject that because it’s a basic misunderstanding of physics.

…and my knowledge of material behaviour leads me to conclude that the conscious freedom I enjoy requires more than predictable material reactions.

Which isn’t “knowledge” at all – it’s just a faith claim, and will remain so until you finally manage to justify it with an argument that’s not flat wrong.

And there is the dilemma of trying to figure out how anything came into existence from nothing.

Which may or may not be a coherent question, but in any case a “don’t know” in reply does not justify “therefore god”. You really should understand this by now given how many times it’s been explained to you. 

Other belief systems can be shown to be misguided attempts to discover God by relying too much on our own limited human knowledge.

And the same isn’t also true for your belief system why exactly?

The Islamic faith appears to be entirely dependent on one personal testimony which purports to be a follow up on the Christian bible but contradicts much of the teachings in the New Testament.

So the NT is true because the NT says it’s true, therefore whatever contradicts it must be false?

Not much of an argument is it?

So I will stick with my Christian faith which in essence is God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ…

And I will stick with my leprechaunal faith which in essence is leprechauns making themselves known by leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, confirmed by the teachings of the Big Book of Leprechauns.

So what though? 

…and has been confirmed in so many ways through my own and other people's life changing experience of accepting Jesus into your life.

Lots of people who believe in lots of gods you think to be false have also had life-changing experiences by accepting those gods into their lives. I could explain to you again the various fallacies your reasoning here relies on, but as you’d just ignore the explanations I can’t see that there’d be much point in doing it again. 

[Outrider]

I can easily reject this because of my knowledge that random forces are destructive - not creative

Forces are not random. Any number of natural forces are creative - we focus on the destructive power of, say, hurricanes, but those forces have created the hurricane in the first place, they have shaped the land, sea and air in which we now live. Your assertion that natural forces cannot be creative forgets about, well, nature.

...and my knowledge of material behaviour leads me to conclude that the conscious freedom I enjoy requires more than predictable material reactions.

And, again, you assert rather than giving any sort of explanation as to what elevates this from a belief to something you have a basis for expressing confidence in. You claim to 'know', but can give no basis for that status of 'knowledge'.

And there is the dilemma of trying to figure out how anything came into existence from nothing.

The one thing there is not is a 'dilemma'. If we have no basis for giving an purely natural explanation for the universe that in no way supports your contention of 'Mr Magic Man'. Your continued use of phrases like 'dilemma' tries to make this false dichotomy stick, but it doesn't. If you want to justify your 'knowledge' of god, do so, don't think that a God of the Gaps is going to work here.

Other belief systems can be shown to be misguided attempts to discover God by relying too much on our own limited human knowledge.

Can they? Could you please, rather than just making the claim, actually show some of these things?

The Islamic faith appears to be entirely dependent on one personal testimony which purports to be a follow up on the Christian bible but contradicts much of the teachings in the New Testament.

The Christian faith appears to be entirely dependent on one personal testimony which purports to be a follow-up on the Tanakh but contradicts much of the teaching in the Old Testament.

So I will stick with my Christian faith which in essence is God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has been confirmed in so many ways through my own and other people's life changing experience of accepting Jesus into your life.

La-la-la-la - I'm not listening - la-la-la-la....

Fixed that for you.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are many belief systems, some more plausible than others, but my choice to stick with Christian faith is entirely evidence based - not on childhood indoctrination.

How weird then that:

People brought up christian tend to either remain christian as adults or become non-religious.

People brought up jewish tend to either remain jewish as adults or become non-religious.

People brought up muslim tend to either remain muslim as adults or become non-religious.

People brought up hindu tend to either remain hindu as adults or become non-religious.

People brought up sikh tend to either remain sikh as adults or become non-religious.

Despite what people claim from anecdote individuals freely converting from one religion to another are exceptionally rare.

It is almost as if people tend to find the claims of the religion they were brought up in inherently more plausible than those that the were not brought up to belief. And unless people are brought up to believe a faith claim they tend to find it implausible. Almost as if this is entirely about cultural and societal upbringing (you might even call it indoctrination, using its genuine definition) rather than the actual plausibility of faith claims.

AB - do you really think that had you been brought up as a practicing muslim that you wouldn't be telling us just how clearly true the islamic faith was from your own experience.

[Dicky Underpants]

But is the mistake down to dishonesty or mental aberration and not playing with a full hand as it were.

Lewis sees this in terms of the individual themselves asking what they believe of Jesus. You I would imagine see this in terms of game theory or some such thing.

If you can't be arsed to look at the tri, quadri or whatever "lemma" then IMHO you're betting the house on Atheism.

I read Schweitzer, and realised what real critical thinking was. (S believed that Jesus was mistaken, btw.)

[ProfessorDavey]

But is the mistake down to dishonesty or mental aberration and not playing with a full hand as it were.

It needn't be either dishonesty nor mental aberration, it can just be a case of being genuinely mistaken. Just as people who genuinely believed that the sun orbited the earth were in the 14thC. They weren't mad, they weren't bad, they were genuinely mistaken and, of course, they were wrong.

Lewis sees this in terms of the individual themselves asking what they believe of Jesus. You I would imagine see this in terms of game theory or some such thing.

No, I don't think so. Lewis is manipulative in creating a limited and non-exhaustive list of options on the basis that people at that time would feel uncomfortable ascribing bad or mad to Jesus and then he can pull a faux rabbit out of his logically illiterate hat and go 'ta, da - look god!!!'

If you can't be arsed to look at the tri, quadri or whatever "lemma" then IMHO you're betting the house on Atheism.

If you cannot be arsed to include the full spectrum of obvious options then you are either stupid or dishonest. In the case of Lewis I suspect he was being dishonest and I doubt he was dumb enough not to realise that exaggeration, misinterpretation, genuinely mistaken etc etc were perfectly plausible explanations for the claims in the NT.

The key point, that Lewis appears to ignore, is that the claim-makers here aren't Jesus, but those who wrote the NT decades or even centuries later (noting that the earliest extant texts we have for the claims are typically from the 3rd/4thC or even later).

[Alan Burns]

Forces are not random. Any number of natural forces are creative - we focus on the destructive power of, say, hurricanes, but those forces have created the hurricane in the first place, they have shaped the land, sea and air in which we now live. Your assertion that natural forces cannot be creative forgets about, well, nature.

Observing "nature" on this tiny speck of the material universe is bound to give a biased view of how creative apparently unguided forces can be.  To get a more accurate picture of the destructive power of unguided forces you would need to examine the universe as a whole, but admittedly this would be difficult due to the inaccessibility of other planets.  My honest view is that life will only exist where God wills it to exist.

[torridon]

There are many belief systems, some more plausible than others, but my choice to stick with Christian faith is entirely evidence based - not on childhood indoctrination...

The idea of an 'entirely evidence based' faith is an oxymoron.  Faiths are so called exactly because they are not evidence based.  Faith is what you do if you have no evidence.  What you are calling evidence in this context is merely posthoc justification for a belief held for personal reasons.

[Alan Burns]

You really should understand this by now given how many times it’s been explained to you. 

You cannot explain away the truth.
The truth that our human freedom is a demonstrable reality - not "just the way it seems"
The truth that there is ultimate meaning and purpose to our existence.
The truth that we all comprise more than material reactions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is that a problem for you? Lots of people have been mistaken about lots of supposed deities at lots of times and in lots of places.

So what?

Well in your case, you seem to think that belief in Jesus is in the same category as belief in Leprechauns and I’m pretty sure you don’t put belief in Leprechauns down to anything other than mental aberration. Which to me leaves this so called “Lewis trilemma” looking pretty sound.