If there is no agreement on how a truth is measured and added to one’s worldview then there cannot be much progress in talking about particulars of truth. While it is very true that establishment of the existence of God logically precedes the details about who that God may or may not be, I think we need to delve further back to epistemological principals before traversing through the potential truths.
If some commonality is not found at that level then it is like trying to play chess with the game rules for checkers.
In developing a worldview we must remember that it will always be developing, adapting, and evolving to encompass more and more truth as we learn it. There has to be room for revision and removal of inaccurate perspectives as we grow in truth and knowledge. I propose that one needs to measure all things that make up ones worldview by three tests of truth.
First does the thing line up philosophically as true? This is the ethereal, but important level of examining a worldview. Is it logical? Is it true? Is it right? Is it consistent with other known truths? Or are their logical inconsistencies? Are there fundamental philosophical problems with the hypothesis?
Secondly can it be communicated rationally or is it too ethereal and abstract to even be able to express? If the former move on to the third test, if the later there needs to be some work done in the level of the first test. Or possibly if it is reexamined at the first level and found sound, then it may need some work at the second level. If it cannot be illustrated by story or picture or dialog it needs further work to find out why and to determine where the problem lies. Maybe it needs revision, maybe it needs to be abandoned, or maybe you will learn a way to express the thing.
Thirdly, is it practicable? Does it work in the real world? Can it be pulled out of the ethereal, communicated, and implemented as truth? If not then go back to test one, because most likely there is a problem there.
I often hear people think only in the third level even when it violates the first. For example, someone may argue that they have need of food therefore they have a right to the food others have to fulfill their hunger. This way of thinking quickly leads to either stealing or communism as it violates the first level and only reasons in the third level.
One would need to think in level one about whether it is right for one person to take from another person what does not belong to them or if someone has a right to what they did not work to earn. Because if stealing is wrong in the first level it is still wrong in the practical level and the need does not overcome the morality problem. But when we only think according to the third level we give no thought to ethics or truth, but to personal need and survival irrespective of truth and righteousness.
However to respond to a person’s practical need by philosophizing in the first level without a solution in the third can be just as wrong. Often people take a philosophical position and leave the person in need at the mercy of their philosophy with no practical help for them. Something only being pertinent in the first level, but having no value in the third is just as errant as something thought out only in the third with disregard to the first and second level of development.
I started this essay delineating the philosophical need for a worldview and philosophically proposed how one can test a thing before adding or retaining it in their worldview. Next, I illustrated the point with an example using the second level of the test.
Now for the practical it has to work beyond my theorizing and illustrating and can only be tested by practical use of the method for any who agree in the first and second level of thought to take it to the level of practical trial.
31 comments:
The question I always ask at this point is:
If you belive that *your* world view meets all 3 criteria and I believe that *my* world view meets all 3 criteria..... How can we determine which of them is correct? Or can multiple world views equally meet all 3 criteria?
Cyber “If you believe that *your* world view meets all 3 criteria and I believe that *my* world view meets all 3 criteria..... How can we determine which of them is correct? Or can multiple world views equally meet all 3 criteria?“
I don’t think two opposing components of a worldview can adequately meet all three tests. However, I think there will be shared components that are not opposing since we all live in the real world. The first step would be agreeing on the tests as good indicators of something being true, then examining the things we consider to be true against the criteria.
karla said: The first step would be agreeing on the tests as good indicators of something being true, then examining the things we consider to be true against the criteria.
OK - Go ahead. I'd be interested to see how our opposing world views can be falsified...
I believe we are doing this with every discussion. I delineated in this post the process I use that I think is a good process to use for such analysis.
For example, under the post First Knight, BoomSlang is arguing that God cannot be good because God did XYZ. I counter that "good" has to be established (ie the first level) before XYZ (third level) can be determined to be good or bad. The leg work of the discussion must begin in level 1, communicated adequately (level 2) and then we get to level 3 to see what things look like. If God is found to be the standard of good in level 1 then He remains so in level 3. But if He is not in level 1 then He continues to not be in level 3.
I think that before we can even conceive of a debate on the Goodness (or otherwise) of God you need to show that He could at least theoretically exist.
From my worldview I think that your worldview is wholly wrong. I suspect that you think that my worldview is likewise.
How do we decide who is right if, as I stated before, you believe that your view meets all 3 criteria in your post and I believe that my worldview meets all 3 criteria?
Karla: For example, under the post First Knight, BoomSlang is arguing that God cannot be good because God did XYZ. I counter that "good" has to be established (ie the first level) before XYZ (third level) can be determined to be good or bad.
While I see errors in the main article, I was actually going leave this alone. Yet, now my name has popped up, so I will jump in.
Recap: I have been arguing, since day one, that "Moral Objectivism" is non-existent. The closest we will get to a "standard" by which we, in *our* society, measure "good", "right" and "moral", is, repeat: the avoidance of unnecessary harm(to ourselves, and others).
THAT is how I say "morality" and what is "good" is determined. However, I fully understand that this doesn't "establish" said view, if said view is being challenged.(which it is)
So, in turn, when Christian theists(Karla) challenge the above by insisting that "good" is rooted in "God", I counter this proposition by pointing out that things like keeping and beating slaves, pelting prostitutes and defiant young adults with rocks, drowning people, killing non-virgins on their wedding night, killing non-christians etc., etc...i.e..all of the abhorent, despicable acts delineated in the bible, are not by any stretch of the imagination, "good", by today's standards. We, as a civilized, educated society - *including* Christians - KNOW that these things are not "good", and we ALL know this because no one adheres to such barbaric practices anymore, illustrating two things: a) we don't get "morality" from "God", and b) even if "God" existed, our sense of "good" is more "moral" than that of "God".
We did NOT become a civilized, caring society by following the codes/commands laid out in the bible.
boomSLANG said: We did NOT become a civilized, caring society by following the codes/commands laid out in the bible.
Certainly *not* by following Leviticus! [laughs]
Cyber "I think that before we can even conceive of a debate on the Goodness (or otherwise) of God you need to show that He could at least theoretically exist."
I was going to say I fully agree. However, I began to think about the need for an ontological source of absolute goodness being an argument in and of itself of the existence of God.
Cyber "From my worldview I think that your worldview is wholly wrong. I suspect that you think that my worldview is likewise."
Components of it, fundemental ones, but not all of it. For example, we share that the natural world exist. My world view encompasses some of yours and sustaines aspects of yours that needs a supernatural underpinning.
Cyber "How do we decide who is right if, as I stated before, you believe that your view meets all 3 criteria in your post and I believe that my worldview meets all 3 criteria?"
As it stands neither of us has demonstrated to an extent that the other agrees that our worldview does in fact meet these proposed tests. I think we would have to start there. Most people have a blind spot in their thinking that someone else might be able to show them that may help further them in truth and that goes for myself too.
Boom before we delve into the topic once again, what "errors" do you see in the post? Do you have any disagreement with the 3 tests of a worldview? I think it helpful to start there.
karla said: I began to think about the need for an ontological source of absolute goodness being an argument in and of itself of the existence of God.
No, it isn't - as there *is* no absolute goodness. That's just an assertion and a so-called justification for theism. Unless you can show that absolute goodness - or even goodness as a separate 'thing' - exists first you cannot use it to prove the existence of God.
karla said: My world view encompasses some of yours and sustaines aspects of yours that needs a supernatural underpinning.
Except that I maintain that the natural world (if it in fact exists) needs no such supernatural underpinning.
karla said: As it stands neither of us has demonstrated to an extent that the other agrees that our worldview does in fact meet these proposed tests. I think we would have to start there.
OK. You first.
Karla: ... before we delve into the topic once again, what "errors" do you see in the post?
"In developing a worldview we must remember that it will always be developing, adapting, and evolving to encompass more and more truth as we learn it. There has to be room for revision and removal of inaccurate perspectives as we grow in truth and knowledge." ~ Karla
A worldview that is open to "revision" and to "developing, adapting, and evolving" is antithetical to harboring a religious conviction, namely, the unmovable belief that an "Absolute", "Universal Truth" exists, which BTW, by definition, implies a "Truth" that is UN-changing.
A position of neutrality, on the other hand, is very much compatible with "developing, adapting, and evolving", because from the onset, one admits that they don't know all the epistemological answers. It's all about acquiring *new* information, and being perfectly free to change one's views, based on that information.
For instance, we know through scientific discovery that the earth is not geocentric. Yet, the ancients believed that, yes, the earth was at the center of it all. The bible alludes to this on a couple of occasions.
For those who think freely, they are open to a "revision", in the case of harboring erroneous knowledge. Conversely, those who hold religious convictions are *not* open to any such "revision", because it would call their religious sources into question, hence, the need for apologetics(which I will wager, such apologetics will be forthcoming.)
When we acquire new information that contradicts the old, the religionist has only two choices: admit error, or defend error.
"I propose that one needs to measure all things that make up ones worldview by three tests of truth." ~ Karla
Then...
"First does the thing line up philosophically as true? This is the ethereal, but important level of examining a worldview. Is it logical? Is it true?" ~ Karla
You propose these "three tests of truth", but in your first "test", you say..."is it true?" Huh? Does anyone besides me see the redundancy?
Then you talk about what is "philosophically" true, which, I agree that a belief worth harboring should be philosophically sound. Well, yours isn't, as has been illustrated over and over and over by me, and other nonbelieving guests.
For instance, "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are incompatible, philosophically. Yet, you keep offering apologetics, as if you can over-come this very clear and present conundrum.
Do you have any disagreement with the 3 tests of a worldview?
The "tests", themselves, no. That your beliefs pass these "tests"? Please---not by a long-shot.
BoomSlang “A worldview that is open to "revision" and to "developing, adapting, and evolving" is antithetical to harboring a religious conviction, namely, the unmovable belief that an "Absolute", "Universal Truth" exists, which BTW, by definition, implies a "Truth" that is UN-changing. “
The Truth is unchanging, but I am not omniscient so I don’t know all truth and thus need to grow in my knowledge of truth.
BoomSlang “A position of neutrality, on the other hand, is very much compatible with "developing, adapting, and evolving", because from the onset, one admits that they don't know all the epistemological answers. It's all about acquiring *new* information, and being perfectly free to change one's views, based on that information.”
The only way to increase knowledge of the truth and to expel old ideas of that truth is if there is a truth to know, to remain neutral on the knowability of truth would presume an inability to ever grow in knowledge.
BoomSlang “For those who think freely, they are open to a "revision", in the case of harboring erroneous knowledge. Conversely, those who hold religious convictions are *not* open to any such "revision", because it would call their religious sources into question, hence, the need forapologetics(which I will wager, such apologetics will be forthcoming.)”
The Bible doesn’t cover every area of truth and even if it did I would not have absolute knowledge of all that it covers with full complete understanding and would still be learning truth and expelling old ideas that do not line up with truth.
BoomSlang “When we acquire new information that contradicts the old, the religionist has only two choices: admit error, or defend error.”
Sometimes religious people have this mentality. I believe that my understanding of the Bible can be in error at times and does need revising from time to time, not because truth has changed, but because my understanding of it has changed.
BoomSlang “You propose these "three tests of truth", but in your first "test", you say..."is it true?" Huh? Does anyone besides me see the redundancy?”
Some things we can instantly expel as non-truth because it at the start has a logical contradiction or is found to be based on faulty information so I think it worth while to think about if the person is really ready to put it through the tests of truth.
BoomSlang “Then you talk about what is "philosophically" true, which, I agree that a belief worth harboring should be philosophically sound. Well, yoursisn't, as has been illustrated over and over and over by me, and other nonbelieving guests.”
I believe the components of my worldview that we have discussed thus far do pass this test, but that is still yet to be demonstrated by me to your satisfaction.
BoomSlang “For instance, "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are incompatible, philosophically. Yet, you keep offering apologetics, as if you can over-come this very clear and present conundrum.”
I have not had that demonstrated to me to my satisfaction as I still see no incompatibility.
BoomSlang “The "tests", themselves, no.”
Good at least we have some common ground on that.
BoomSlang “That your beliefs pass these "tests"? Please---not by a long-shot.”
I know and I see many components of your worldview as not passing these tests either. Which brings us to Cyber’s very good question of how good are these tests if we who have opposing worldviews both stand by the veracity of our worldviews by the same tests? I still hold that we cannot both logically be correct, and I think we agree there that God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
Karla: The Truth is unchanging, but I am not omniscient so I don’t know all truth and thus need to grow in my knowledge of truth.
This "Truth" that you insist is "unchanging" must be from something other than the bible, because it's been illustrated over, and over, and over again, that the bible contains information that is inconsistant/incongruent with what we currently know.
With that said...what's your new source, then? Don't say "the bible", because it contains blatant, provable, inconsistancies.
Karla: The Bible doesn’t cover every area of truth..
So then, really, "Christians" shouldn't be making claims like "Christ is the answer" on their blogs or church marquees. If you admittedly don't know "Truth" in a Universal/Absolute sense--as in, "every area", then "Christ" might only be the "answer" for one aspect of life. There might be other, more important questions, that need to be asked/answered.
Karla: ....and even if it did I would not have absolute knowledge of all that it covers with full complete understanding and would still be learning truth and expelling old ideas that do not line up with truth.
But you have consistantly proven an unwillingness when it comes to "expelling old ideas", namely, false ones.
Me, previously: "When we acquire new information that contradicts the old, the religionist has only two choices: admit error, or defend error."
Karla: Sometimes religious people have this mentality.
I know, as seen when you defend your errors here, daily.
Karla: I believe that my understanding of the Bible can be in error at times and does need revising from time to time, not because truth has changed, but because my understanding of it has changed.
Yes, thank you. As I've said before, you take an ideological approach concerning your beliefs: You have determined, a priori, that the bible cannot be wrong, so if something seems amiss to you in the bible, then it *must* be YOUR "misunderstanding"(or lack of), but never that the bible simply might not be the "Truth" that it is claimed to be. Again, a fine example of fundamentalism.
Karla: Some things we can instantly expel as non-truth because it at the start has a logical contradiction or is found to be based on faulty information so I think it worth while to think about if the person is really ready to put it through the tests of truth.
Yes, but this suggests that the question, "is it true?", can be answered objectively with a "yes"/"no" answer, which, if that were so, there'd be no need for the rest of "tests"!!! My goodness!
Karla: I believe the components of my worldview that we have discussed thus far do pass this test, but that is still yet to be demonstrated by me to your satisfaction.
The let's fix this(like I haven't tried before).
Read the following, and tell me, *specifically*, what it is that you do not understand, or what it is that you disagree with:
If person "X" is "omniscient", and thus, by definition, it knows, absolutely and ultimately, ALL of its future choices, then person "X" has no potential, whatsoever, to change their mind, because if they could change their mind, this would then prove that person "X" didn't know its *ultimate*(final) choices to begin with.
There you go. I(and I'm sure others, probably even some Theists) look forward to your reply.
Karla: ...I see many components of your worldview as not passing these tests either.
Could you be any more vague? Name one "component", bearing in mind that we know nature exists, and thus, it is not my burden to disprove your assertion that Super-Duper-Nature is "under-pinning" nature.
Karla: The Truth is unchanging, but I am not omniscient so I don’t know all truth and thus need to grow in my knowledge of truth.
BoomSlang “This "Truth" that you insist is "unchanging" must be from something other than the bible, because it's been illustrated over, and over, and over again, that the bible contains information that is inconsistant/incongruent with what we currently know. “
For right now I am only asserting that there is a “Truth” and that that truth is unchanging. Whether the Bible expresses said truth accurately or not is secondary to that statement and isn’t something I am trying to prove at this point.
BoomSlang “With that said...what's your new source, then? Don't say "the bible", because it contains blatant, provable, inconsistancies.”
My source that there is an unchanging truth? Many philosophers predating the Bible asserted there was a Truth. I see it as self-evident, but I realize not everybody does.
Karla: The Bible doesn’t cover every area of truth..
BoomSlang “So then, really, "Christians" shouldn't be making claims like "Christ is the answer" on their blogs or church marquees.”
I can see how that could create some misunderstanding.
BoomSlang “ If you admittedly don't know "Truth" in a Universal/Absolute sense--as in, "every area", then "Christ" might only be the "answer" for one aspect of life. There might be other, more important questions, that need to be asked/answered. “
Admittedly when one is asked a mathematical equation the answer isn’t Jesus. Christians do not mean that by the statement.
BoomSlang “But you have consistantly proven an unwillingness when it comes to "expelling old ideas", namely, false ones.”
Ah, but you haven’t known me very long. I may not back down from essentials that I do see to be quite true such as God’s existence and life in Christ, but I am continually analyzing my worldview and making changes and expelling old things. On this blog I often stick to very essential building blocks of worldview and do not delve into the other layers of worldview because it wouldn’t make sense to go beyond the basics when there is no agreement with my audience on the basics.
BoomSlang “If person "X" is "omniscient", and thus, by definition, it knows, absolutely and ultimately, ALL of its future choices, then person "X" has no potential, whatsoever, to change their mind, because if they could change their mind, this would then prove that person "X" didn't know its *ultimate*(final) choices to begin with.”
It sounds like here you are saying the problem of the omniscience omnipotence doesn’t lie with God knowing what humans will do or not do which I thought you were discussing, but His knowledge of His own actions. You are then proposing, if He knows what He will do in the future, He can’t change and do something else. So that entails something he cannot do, and if he cannot do something then He cannot be all powerful, is that it?
Before I respond, please confirm I have summarized in my words understanding of your position.
BoomSlang “Could you be any more vague? Name one "component", bearing in mind that we know nature exists, and thus, it is not my burden to disprove your assertion that Super-Duper-Nature is "under-pinning" nature.”
The common answer I get from atheists is that they do not have to defend their worldview. But I think everyone’s worldview ought to make sense of the world and be defendable. As for a component, I am not sure you have said a whole lot that is concrete about your own positions. Most of what you say is contradicting my positions without affirming your own. I could assume you hold the same position as other atheists, but you haven’t listed any in the positive to my recollection. So to be fair I cannot name a component you hold without speaking as if you affirmatively hold it such as: God not existing, or nature being all there is, or goodness being rooted in cultural determination and not in any outside standard.
Karla: For right now I am only asserting that there is a “Truth” and that that truth is unchanging. Whether the Bible expresses said truth accurately or not is secondary to that statement and isn’t something I am trying to prove at this point.
This is absolutely, positively insane. The very source by which you have previously based what you are "asserting" to be a "Truth" that is "unchanging", you concede might not be an accurate source. How you tell me this stuff, and keep a straight face, I have no clue. I don't whether to laugh, or cry. Then again, maybe you're an Atheist with way too much time on your hands.
Me, previously: "With that said...what's your new source, then? Don't say 'the bible', because it contains blatant, provable, inconsistancies."
Karla: My source that there is an unchanging truth? Many philosophers predating the Bible asserted there was a Truth. I see it as self-evident, but I realize not everybody does
I'm sorry? Is there an answer to the question in there somewhere? Some "philosophers" thought this, that, and the other thing. So?
Karla: Admittedly when one is asked a mathematical equation the answer isn’t Jesus.
Unless it is asked, "When does 1 + 1 + 1 = 1"?
Me, previously: “But you have consistantly proven an unwillingness when it comes to 'expelling old ideas', namely, false ones.”
Karla: Ah, but you haven’t known me very long.
Long enough to see that intellectual honesty is secondary to your religious/"Spiritual" beliefs.
Me, previously: "If person 'X' is 'omniscient', and thus, by definition, it knows, absolutely and ultimately, ALL of its future choices, then person 'X' has no potential, whatsoever, to change their mind, because if they could change their mind, this would then prove that person 'X' didn't know its *ultimate*(final) choices to begin with."
Karla: It sounds like here you are saying the problem of the omniscience omnipotence doesn’t lie with God knowing what humans will do or not do which I thought you were discussing, but His knowledge of His own actions
Arrrrrrrgggggg!!!!!!!
The "problem" LIES with WHOMEVER "X" is!!! The philosophical INCONSISTANCY of "omniscience"/"omnipotence" makes "free agency" impossible, whether guy, girl, goat, Godzilla, or, yes, "GOD"!!!!!
You are then proposing, if He knows what He will do in the future, He can’t change and do something else......
NO, "He" can "change and do something else", but *if* "He" can, then "He" is not/was not "omniscient".
So that entails something he cannot do, and if he cannot do something then He cannot be all powerful, is that it?
Again, the argument is that "God", or whoever, cannot, both know its future choices, and be able to alter those choices. If "God" exists, one of those attributes takes it in the neck.
Of course, one needn't wrestle with this if one could just entertain the idea that no such being exists. It is then that all of the mental gymnastics become unnecessary.
Me, previously: "Could you be any more vague? Name one 'component', bearing in mind that we know nature exists, and thus, it is not my burden to disprove your assertion that Super-Duper-Nature is 'under-pinning' nature."
Karla: The common answer I get from atheists is that they do not have to defend their worldview.
Did you ever stop to consider that there are valid reasons for why you're told this?
Here is my "worldview", in a nutshell:
- nature exists
- I don't see credible evidence that nature requires "Supernature"
- to the origins of existence, my answer is, I don't know
- I don't see credible evidence for the existence of ANY invisible, conscious beings, therefore, *I lack a belief that such things exist
* Note: I am NOT saying, "GOD DOES NOT EXIST". I hold a position of NEUTRALITY on that issue, therefore, I don't need to "defend" anything. Please STOP projecting your own misconceptions about my "worldview" into the equation. We get nowhere.
Karla: Most of what you say is contradicting my positions without affirming your own.
'Not listening again, I see.
Please tell me how I go about "affirming" that it's true that I don't see credible evidence for "God"??????? Will you affirm for me that you don't like elephant feces on your pizza? 'See the problem?
Karla: So to be fair I cannot name a component you hold without speaking as if you affirmatively hold it such as: God not existing, or nature being all there is...
But as you know...wait!...scratch that!....as you *should* know, I'm not saying "God" is "not existing". I'm saying, I see no evidence for "God" existing. Nor am I saying "nature" is "all there is". I'm saying, nature exists, and I see no credible evidence that there is anything more than nature at this time.
Can you give me an indication of when you will actually try to start entertaining what's being said to you? Note, I'm not asking you to agree with me; I'm asking you to UNDERSTAND my position, which, if you did, it would prevent it from being butchered here, daily.
BoomSlang “This is absolutely, positively insane. The very source by which you have previously based what you are "asserting" to be a "Truth" that is "unchanging", you concede might not be an accurate source. How you tell me this stuff, and keep a straight face, I have no clue. I don't whether to laugh, or cry. Then again, maybe you're an Atheist with way too much time on your hands.”
I think you have misunderstood my assertion. I have been asserting there is an absolute Truth and that God is that constant. My thoughts concerning the Bible have no bearing on that statement, and I have not said anything about the Bible being inaccurate. I see the Truth source as an eternal being, not a book. That is not to say the book does not mirror the Truth, but only that I’m not talking about the Bible when I say Truth.
BoomSlang “I'm sorry? Is there an answer to the question in there somewhere? Some "philosophers" thought this, that, and the other thing. So?”
My point is that we can remove the Bible from the discuss and can be still left with the idea that Truth exists.
Karla: Admittedly when one is asked a mathematical equation the answer isn’t Jesus.
BoomSlang “Unless it is asked, "When does 1 + 1 + 1 = 1"?”
(-: It’s more like 1 * 1 * 1 = 1
.
BoomSlang “Long enough to see that intellectual honesty is secondary to your religious/"Spiritual" beliefs.”
Truth is of primary importance to me.
BoomSlang “The "problem" LIES with WHOMEVER "X" is!!! The philosophical INCONSISTANCY of "omniscience"/"omnipotence" makes "free agency" impossible, whether guy, girl, goat, Godzilla, or, yes, "GOD"!!!!!”
Okay, I’m sorry. I have not understood this argument before now. I have only heard people argue that omniscience was contradictory to humanity’s free will. And I thought that was the argument you had been giving all along. So I was hearing it through the other argument and it wasn’t making sense.
I have to think that through.
BoomSlang “NO, "He" can "change and do something else", but *if* "He" can, then "He" is not/was not "omniscient".”
Okay, I get you now, I think. I need to think this through.
BoomSlang “Again, the argument is that "God", or whoever, cannot, both know its future choices, and be able to alter those choices. If "God" exists, one of those attributes takes it in the neck.
I will give them some thought and get back with you soon.
BoomSlang “Of course, one needn't wrestle with this if one could just entertain the idea that no such being exists. It is then that all of the mental gymnastics become unnecessary. “
It would be easier to entertain such I idea if I didn’t have relationship with Him.
Boom, thank you for that delineation of your positions. I will try to do better at showing understanding of that position.
Karla: It would be easier to entertain such I idea if I didn’t have relationship with Him.
Since we all know that you cannot prove that you have a "relationship" with an invisible, conscious, creator-being, in my view, you are pretending to have this "relationship".
Thus, if you can pretend to have a relationship, then you can also pretend that you don't have a relationship, and in which case, you can then see how you wouldn't need make "sense" out of nonsense, in the case of Christianity being false. Seriously, give it try.
Me: "Again, the argument is that 'God', or whoever, cannot, both know its future choices, and be able to alter those choices. If 'God' exists, one of those attributes takes it in the neck."
Karla: I will give them some thought and get back with you soon.
Okay, let us know when you understand the argument/refutation, fully, and in which case, you'll understand that there's no (honest) way around it.
BoomSlang "Since we all know that you cannot prove that you have a "relationship" with an invisible, conscious, creator-being, in my view, you are pretending to have this "relationship"."
So things have to be proven to be real? I can't prove to you that I am hungry but that doesn't make my hunger less real.
My internet isn't working at home so it will be Monday before I comment again unless I get it fixed before then. But I can't prove that to you either, so I guess I'm just pretending it's not working.
Karla: So things have to be proven to be real?
::sigh::
This is really scary. It really, really is. It's simply mind-boggling how you cannot(but more likely, will not) grasp my position.
Again, I believe that YOU BELIEVE that you really, really are in a "relationship" with an invisible, conscious being. 'Follow? However, since you cannot confirm it in any objective sense, whatsoever, then therefore, NO, I DO NOT believe your "relationship" with this fellow is "real", since I do not believe that this fellow exists.
I reiterate--I believe that YOU believe it's "real", similar to how a child believes their relationship with their favorite stuffed animal is "real". However, again, I don't believe the object of the child's affection is "real", nor do I believe the object of your affection, is "real". If you expect me to believe you, you'll need some credible evidence. To date, you have none.
Karla: I can't prove to you that I am hungry but that doesn't make my hunger less real.
FYI, you've used this very same, flimsy, unconvincing analogy in the past with me. It's quite possibly verbatim.
Try to really pay attention to the following refutation, as to avoid using your "hunger" argument in the future with Atheists.
Here we go...
- Since we have plenty of testible, verifiable evidence that human beings require food to live, I have no reason to doubt that Karla is "hungry" if she says she is.
- Even if Karla is "hungry", and I don't believe her, so what?!?! There are no conditions attached to whether or not I believe another human being is "hungry", or not---no one is threatening me if I'm skeptical; I'm free to walk away, no questions asked....that is, unless perhaps the great Cafeteria God in the sky is going make me eat brussel sprouts every night for all of eternity when I die.
Karla, if that idea seems silly to you, then good, then you know exactly how I feel when Christians tell me that "Yahweh" is going to see to it that I'm tortured with fire for all of eternity when I die. It's nonsense, Karla, and that's why I'm unable to believe it. The much more likely senario is, when we die, there is the cessation of consciousness, and that's it. Were you inconvenienced or bummed-out for the trillions of years before you were born? Of course not--and likewise, it'll be the same when after you expire.
Karla: My internet isn't working at home so it will be Monday before I comment again unless I get it fixed before then. But I can't prove that to you either, so I guess I'm just pretending it's not working.
I'm not asking you to "prove" to me that you have connection issues. Moreover, I've experienced internet connections problems, myself, so I have no reason to doubt your internet is broken. In any event, when you get it fixed, you'll have to do better.
Boom, you might take the position that I must be pretending because I can't prove it. But you can't know that I am pretending any more than you can know God doesn't exist.
It is interesting to me that testimony of my personal experience has no value to many atheists.
Karla: Boom, you might take the position that I must be pretending because I can't prove it.
Yes, it's true. You can't prove that you have a relationship with an invisible, noncorporeal, conscious being. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, yes, you are pretending. This is not to say that you are knowingly pretending, though. Again, I fully believe that you believe it.
continues...But you can't know that I am pretending any more than you can know God doesn't exist.
With as much certainty as I can say that I know that you don't have a relationship with a "married bachelor", I can likewise say that I know that you don't have a relationship with the Christian biblegod. Now, perhaps you have a relationship with some other generic deity whose attributes have yet to be defined, in which case, said attributes might not contradict for all I know, and if not, then no, I cannot claim to know that you aren't in a relationship with him/her/it. But as soon as you tell me that deity "X" has attributes that contradict, then your claim becomes suspect, and not unreasonably so.
continues...It is interesting to me that testimony of my personal experience has no value to many atheists.
And it's interesting to me that you find it "interesting", since you probably don't see much "value" in the personal experiences of those Muslims who claim to have a loving relationship with "Allah".
BoomSlang “Yes, it's true. You can't prove that you have a relationship with an invisible, noncorporeal, conscious being. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, yes, you are pretending. This is not to say that you are knowingly pretending, though. Again, I fully believe that you believe it.”
It would make more sense to say you believe I am mistaken than that you believe I am pretending. Pretending connotes that I am intentionally making it up.
BoomSlang “With as much certainty as I can say that I know that you don't have a relationship with a "married bachelor", I can likewise say that I know that you don't have a relationship with the Christian biblegod.”
So you fully understand what is postulated to be the Christian Bible God and have fully discovered that such a God cannot exist and thus interpret all that I say regarding my experiencing said God as to be impossible?
BoomSlang “Now, perhaps you have a relationship with some other generic deity whose attributes have yet to be defined, in which case, said attributes might not contradict for all I know, and if not, then no, I cannot claim to know that you aren't in a relationship with him/her/it. But as soon as you tell me that deity "X" has attributes that contradict, then your claim becomes suspect, and not unreasonably so. “
Or perhaps the Christian God isn’t the God you think he is and your estimation of Him and the possibility of His reality is in error. . .
BoomSlang “And it's interesting to me that you find it "interesting", since you probably don't see much "value" in the personal experiences of those Muslims who claim to have a loving relationship with "Allah". “
As I have said before, Muslims will not make the claim of having a loving relationship or any relationship with Allah. The Koran does not equate love with Allah, nor does it give Muslims any hope of any kind of relationship. However, if someone of another religion told me they have encountered God I would not discount their testimony.
Atheists tell me all the time they have not encountered God and I do not discount their testimonies either.
Karla: It would make more sense to say you believe I am mistaken than that you believe I am pretending. Pretending connotes that I am intentionally making it up.
To say, "I believe you are pretending" is, yes, to imply that you are knowingly making stuff up. This is why I've clarified that I believe that what you believe is "real". If I use the word "pretend", it should be implict that the context is the same as if I said, "Hey, my neice was pretending to have lunch with her Poo-bear earlier today".
While one compartment of her mind believes that she was actually doing just that, another compartment is employing willful self-deception. The bottom line, however, is that there is no evidence that sharing conversation and a bite to eat with a stuffed animal is actually possible, thus, why we might say she is "pretending". Nonetheless, I don't want to get bogged down with this issue, so I will refrain from using the term.
Me, previously: “With as much certainty as I can say that I know that you don't have a relationship with a 'married bachelor', I can likewise say that I know that you don't have a relationship with the Christian biblegod.”
You respond: So you fully understand what is postulated to be the Christian Bible God and have fully discovered that such a God cannot exist...
Only to the extent of being based on what Christians and their bibles tell me. If Christians and their bibles are in error, then perhaps there can, and does, exist such a being.
continues......and thus interpret all that I say regarding my experiencing said God as to be impossible?
Pretty much, yes. But remember, this going by the terms that you set. If I say that I have an invisible PINK cat in my garage, should I really be shocked if you retort, "That description is conceptually impossible, therefore, such a reality is impossible, therefore, I don't believe you."???
continues...Or perhaps the Christian God isn’t the God you think he is and your estimation of Him and the possibility of His reality is in error.
I'm NOT "estimating". Again, I'm using the very attributes that Christians and their bibles have supplied. Since the "God" in question is busy "hiding" for my benefit(another Xian assertion), this is all I have to go on....i.e...the bible, and what Christians assert to be true about their biblegod.
continues...As I have said before, Muslims will not make the claim of having a loving relationship or any relationship with Allah.
Yes, just like you previously made the bold-faced assertion that Muslims don't pray for "Miracles", when in fact, I've proven you wrong by supplying links that refute your assertion. Shall I find some links that prove that Muslims believe they have a relationship with Allah? Or will that be a waste of time, due to your uncanny ability to ignore whatever goes against your worldview???
....if someone of another religion told me they have encountered God I would not discount their testimony.
Of course not. And let me guess---because you will dogmatically insist that they have met "Jesus" and mistaken him for something else. To which I say, no one has met "Allah" or "Jesus", because neither have a referent in reality.
continues...Atheists tell me all the time they have not encountered God and I do not discount their testimonies either.
Yet, while it might appear that you are standing up for "Atheists", you ultimately put the responsibility on them for not "finding" this "God", while you put none of the respnsibility on "God", who is the one doing the "hiding". This negates your entire statement, as far as I'm concerned.
Boom “Only to the extent of being based on what Christians and their bibles tell me. If Christians and their bibles are in error, then perhaps there can, and does, exist such a being.”
It is possible that Christians, myself included, may have given a false impression about said God. Also with reference to the Bible, I have only seen that you use the parts of the Bible that defend your case against God and do not allow as evidence the rest of the Bible that gives reason for the information you use to defend your point. I know you could suggest the same of me. And to be fair, it is possible I am inadvertently doing this as well. However, while I accept the accounts of God’s actions that you see as “abhorrent” as the just actions of a Holy God, you do not seem to accept that He has a right to ever exact said Justice. The Bible speaks of this, but that seems to be ignored.
Boom “Yet, while it might appear that you are standing up for "Atheists", you ultimately put the responsibility on them for not "finding" this "God", while you put none of the respnsibility on "God", who is the one doing the "hiding". This negates your entire statement, as far as I'm concerned.”
We each do have responsibility to seek out what is true and have responsibility for what we do with that truth. However, I see Christians, myself included, as having the primary responsibility to demonstrate and represent the reality of God to people who have not yet met Him. While God can and sometimes does Sovereignly and boldly reveal Himself supernaturally, He most often works through us who are in relationship with Him to show Himself to others. So I do not support Christians putting any blame or condemnation upon the atheists.
Karla: ...with reference to the Bible, I have only seen that you use the parts of the Bible that defend your case against God and do not allow as evidence the rest of the Bible that gives reason for the information you use to defend your point.
There are different implications for my taking issue with different "parts of the bible", however.
For instance, even if I overlook the logically inconsistant parts of the bible that are evidence of said biblegod's NON-existence, and grant that this biblegod exists, this being calls the annihilation of entire races of human beings "Just"; this biblegod calls stoning people "Just"(I don't care if these people are "drunk", sober or "men" or children; they are still human beings), in which case, I don't care that there are bible verses that show its lovey-dovey, "kind" side. 'Get it? I denounce this being based on it's past atrocious, inhumane behavior. There is no "statute of limitation" for war crimes, and there shouldn't be one for "Yahweh", just because it goes by the job-title "God".
This is where our views differ, drastically. You say "God" can do this, that, and the other thing and it is "Perfect Justice", while you know damned-well that if man tried the same "ethics", you'd be right behind me condemning those "ethics".
This is the double-standard of "Good"/"Right"/"Morality" you have errected, and it underscores my point all along:
"God" can do/command whatever it feels like doing/commanding, and you, its proponent, will see these actions as "Good" no matter what, even though you know(and admit) that we "ought not" do such things, ourselves. The error of your argument has been illustrated over and over, and yet, you still defend it.
continues.....while I accept the accounts of God’s actions that you see as “abhorrent” as the just actions of a Holy God, you do not seem to accept that He has a right to ever exact said Justice. The Bible speaks of this, but that seems to be ignored.
Ignored? If you re-read what I just wrote above, nevermind the myriad posts prior to today, you'll see precisely why I REJECT what you and your biblegod deem as "Justice".
I find it incredible that you would suggest that I should believe your biblegod's actions and "morality" is "Just", simply because "the Bible speaks" of it as so, which, BTW, IS. A. CIRCULAR. ARGUMENT.
What you evidentally fail to understand, is that I'm not afraid to put your bible and its "God" under a microscope, albeit, there was once a time when I was trained to not do so, just like you've been trained to not do so.
Karla continues...We each do have responsibility to seek out what is true and have responsibility for what we do with that truth.
And in an objective search for truth/"Truth", we also have a responsibility to correct our errors, which you refuse to do.
Moreover, part of being responsible in finding what it more likely true, is to be true to myself, in which case, I will not force myself to believe something that I find thoroughly UN-believable. If this supposed "God" you speak of exists, the ball is in its court; not mine. It knows, per its "omniscience", precisely what would convince me of its existence, yet, it is evidentally content "hiding" for my supposed benefit. Meanwhile, a place has been prepared for me should I not want to play the adult version of "hide-n-seek". Utterly preposterous.
continues...While God can and sometimes does Sovereignly and boldly reveal Himself supernaturally, He most often works through us who are in relationship with Him to show Himself to others.
Oh, look, the Christian biblegod "most often" does PR with people who are >> already-convinced << of its existence. How convenient! 'Funny how that works, isn't it?
Post a Comment