Topic: Arguements (Read 3355 times)

Dotard · « **on:** November 19, 2008, 06:58:25 AM »

Digging around I found this old post. Thought I would re-post it and see who says what about it. I find nothing non-sensical in it and I cannot deny the logic within.

If someone can point out any flaws in the arguements it would help me with a final conclusion (one day) to my question; "Does a God exist?"

(Note: EB need not apply as his answers are easily predicable. "God did it and God can do anything he wants." Unfortunately answers as such do nothing to contribute to information gathering or logical deducing in search for an answer to that question.)

The Post:

Failure of Revelation
Revelation--receiving direct communication from gods--has failed on a colossal scale over human history. First of all, it is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation (if not all revelation) from God or gods has been false. Worse yet, the distribution of religious revelation has been geographically skewed. All religions originated at one geographical point and spread from there. If any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other, since gods are not as bound by geography as humans are. But that NEVER happens. The calico patterns of religious revelation suggest that, in fact, religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals, and spreads from a geographical center. The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition--the accident of being born into a region that accepts that revelation and nothing else.

God as a Bad Explanation
My first argument addressed the failure of revelation as a credible source for belief in gods. The second argument has to do with the historical use of gods to explain unexplained natural phenomena. We see this approach most in evidence today from those who seek to explain alleged yet-to-be-explained cases of biological evolution: so-called "intelligent design". In its most general form, this argument is often characterized as a "God of the Gaps" argument, in that gods are typically used to explain gaps in our knowledge. As we discover natural causes for previously unexplained observations, we abandon the god-explanations. Never the reverse.

The central point here is that gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable.

Divine Silence
One can reasonably expect that an existing god, if it were able, would make itself known to humans. In fact, the big mystery about the Abrahamic god is why he seems so reluctant to make his presence obvious to everyone. Instead, he relies on a few chosen "prophets" to communicate his will to people. An unfortunate side effect is that there are plenty of false prophets out there at work to take advantage of his reticence.

Christian apologists have devised the "Free Will Defense" (FWD) to explain God's silence. Basically, the idea is that we would somehow be deprived of our freedom to choose to do good if we really knew that there was an all-powerful being that we knew wanted us to do good. By not making his existence plainly evident, God is giving us the "gift" of letting us choose to misbehave. The FWD should not be construed as being of some usefulness to God, because an omniscient being already knows how his creations will choose to behave or misbehave. So it must be for human benefit alone. I suspect that those who choose wrongly end up feeling that it was not such a great benefit, but, what the heck, they deserve it, right?

Ultimately, the FWD is a very flimsy hook on which to hang the existence of God. From an objective point of view, it isn't at all clear why we should find it so difficult to detect the existence of gods. Unless, of course, they don't exist.

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers
For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do. The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain. It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate. The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism. It ceases to exist when the brain dies. Gods do not have physical brains. Therefore, gods probably do not exist.

One further note to add here--why thinking behavior (and brains) evolved in animals. Animals, as opposed to most plants, move around in a territory. They compete with each other for resources. They need a sophisticated guidance system, and they need to be able to manipulate objects in their environments. In other words, brains are needed to operate bodies that move. The human mind is certainly the most sophisticated guidance and danger-avoidance system that we know of. It does not seem reasonable to believe that there would be bodiless, brainless beings that would evolve the same kind of goal-directed behavior. That is, human characteristics are a product of a long chain of evolutionary development that meet the survival needs of life forms on a planetary surface. There is no reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2008, 10:14:15 AM »

Dotard,

i think it's mostly good stuff. Who posted it originally?

Failure of Revelation

Absolutely agree. Links in very neatly with Cop's Geographical Argument thread. The standard response, as you have noted, is 'God (assuming he exists) can do whatever he wants', which neglects the question of why God would set up his one true religion to be virtually indistinguishable to the impartial observer to all the other 'false' ones.

God as a Bad Explanation

i agree with this one, although i'm not sure that it works as an argument. Yes, historically we have increasingly abandoned God as an explanation every time the actual explanation for something has been discovered, but an observed trend does not necessarily imply a certain conclusion. Assuming that the answers which we do not yet have will also be naturalistic answers as part of an argument against the existence of God is begging the question.

Not that i think the aforementioned trend is something that i would be especially comfortable about if i were a theist.

Divine Silence

Yes, it is quiet isn't it.

i wonder why that is.

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers

i don't like this one, because i think it argues probabilities which we have no way of assessing. It states that it is extremely unlikely that mind can exist without brain, based on our experience of the contingent relationships we observe between minds and brains, but for me that is a bit like creationists arguments against the emergence of new species. Actually, it's not as bad as that, because speciation has been observed - creationists just pretend that it hasn't and that therefore it can't, but i digress. i guess i think it's a little anthropocentric to assume that a theoretical deity would conform to our experience of the world.

Mind you, i think that the mind-brain correlation is a very good argument against life after death.

Anyway, just my immediate reaction. More critical views are sure to be along shortly.
Dan

End Bringer · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2008, 12:52:31 PM »

Quote from: Dotard on November 19, 2008, 06:58:25 AM

(Note: EB need not apply as his answers are easily predicable. "God did it and God can do anything he wants." Unfortunately answers as such do nothing to contribute to information gathering or logical deducing in search for an answer to that question.)

Pretty much because most of such arguements are founded on presumption, and thus fail for not recognizing God's perogative.

Quote

Failure of Revelation
Revelation--receiving direct communication from gods--has failed on a colossal scale over human history. First of all, it is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation (if not all revelation) from God or gods has been false. Worse yet, the distribution of religious revelation has been geographically skewed. All religions originated at one geographical point and spread from there. If any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other, since gods are not as bound by geography as humans are. But that NEVER happens. The calico patterns of religious revelation suggest that, in fact, religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals, and spreads from a geographical center. The main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition--the accident of being born into a region that accepts that revelation and nothing else.

Fails for the same reason as Cop. First you are admitting that a theistic/supernatural belief in some form has existed all over the globe before atheism. Thus by your own standard this would seem to give more weight to any theistic belief over atheism. Cake, eatin it too. Second you presume that just because false reports may exist that automatically dismisses the possibility of genuine ones. This is, of course, nonsense as it's tantamount to saying because there have been false police reports of burglary then no one has ever stolen anything. As such the arguement is based on gross generalization and presupposition rather then investigation of the facts in each case.

Thirdly you fail to take into account geography is completely irrelevant when it comes to truth-claims. If the revelatory knowledge itself reflects the way the world actually is, and this knowledge can not easily be attributed to human discovery (no scientific means were availabel to believe the universe was finite and the earth round), then that does indeed give such claims of revelation credibility. This goes to show in DB's question:

Quote

which neglects the question of why God would set up his one true religion to be virtually indistinguishable to the impartial observer to all the other 'false' ones.

In which the obvious answer is that one would expect to look at the religion itself to see if it distinguashed from every other religion, rather than on method of distrubution, as the means in which it's spread is completely irrelevant.

Quote

God as a Bad Explanation
My first argument addressed the failure of revelation as a credible source for belief in gods. The second argument has to do with the historical use of gods to explain unexplained natural phenomena.

You already fail as you assume it was a "natural phenomena" a priori. Thus it's question begging to assume God wasn't involve while trying to determine His involvement.

Quote

We see this approach most in evidence today from those who seek to explain alleged yet-to-be-explained cases of biological evolution: so-called "intelligent design". In its most general form, this argument is often characterized as a "God of the Gaps" argument, in that gods are typically used to explain gaps in our knowledge. As we discover natural causes for previously unexplained observations, we abandon the god-explanations. Never the reverse.

Not true, as more and more people begin to recognize "God of the Gaps" is only being replaced with "Science fiction of the gaps". Again you fall into the same problem of gross generalization.

Quote

The central point here is that gods are only useful as explanations when we don't have a better natural explanation. Over the centuries, the trend has been for us to appeal less and less to supernatural explanations. A reasonable extrapolation of this trend is that no supernatural explanation is reasonable.

Not so reasonable when it's founded on the logical fallacy of question begging. This is made especially more apparent when confronted by questions to which one doesn't know the answer under the evolutionary model (what came first the kidney or the liver?), but assert God wasn't involved.

Quote

Divine Silence
One can reasonably expect that an existing god, if it were able, would make itself known to humans. In fact, the big mystery about the Abrahamic god is why he seems so reluctant to make his presence obvious to everyone. Instead, he relies on a few chosen "prophets" to communicate his will to people. An unfortunate side effect is that there are plenty of false prophets out there at work to take advantage of his reticence.

Bwahahahahahaha! You question beg that genuine revelation from God has never happened, now criticize on why hasn't genuine revelation happened? Too funny.

Quote

Christian apologists have devised the "Free Will Defense" (FWD) to explain God's silence. Basically, the idea is that we would somehow be deprived of our freedom to choose to do good if we really knew that there was an all-powerful being that we knew wanted us to do good. By not making his existence plainly evident, God is giving us the "gift" of letting us choose to misbehave. The FWD should not be construed as being of some usefulness to God, because an omniscient being already knows how his creations will choose to behave or misbehave. So it must be for human benefit alone. I suspect that those who choose wrongly end up feeling that it was not such a great benefit, but, what the heck, they deserve it, right?

I would say that was the wrong answer as well. Mostly because there are several instances where God is indeed known beyond all doubt to exist but those with free will choose to disobey anyway.

Quote

Ultimately, the FWD is a very flimsy hook on which to hang the existence of God. From an objective point of view, it isn't at all clear why we should find it so difficult to detect the existence of gods. Unless, of course, they don't exist.

Actually your arguement fails for another simple reason. It's called "dropping the ball" challenge that philosophers used to make to "prove" God didn't exist. "If God were real all He'd have to do is to stop this ball from falling to the floor to prove it" so the arguement goes, then the philosopher drops the ball and watches it fall to the floor.

This arguement fails for the obvious reason that a student can challenge the proffessor to drop the ball and if the student is real he could catch it. Thus the philosopher drops the ball and the student lets it fall to the floor. The student can then turn to the phiosopher and say "Have you disporven my existence, or just that I don't feel the need to jump threw hoops for you? Because if it's the former you can not punish me for striking you."

Quote

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers
For me, this argument is one of the strongest against belief in any gods. Gods are agents. They think, reason, plan, remember, and experience emotions just as humans do. The argument here is that neural science has shown virtually every cognitive ability to be rooted in the functioning of a physical brain. It is extremely unlikely that a mind could exist independently of its physical substrate. The mind evolves as the brain develops from infancy thru adulthood. Its ability to function depends completely on the health of the brain during the life of the organism. It ceases to exist when the brain dies. Gods do not have physical brains. Therefore, gods probably do not exist.

You failed when you said "extremely unlikely" as it shows your simply asserting your opinion as fact, and are indeed question begging that a being can't exist in the immaterial (ie soul) to prove the it can't. Of course this is rather silly as the mind itself is an immaterial thing, thus acknowledging that immaterial things exist. That you see a correlation between an immaterial thing and the physical does not entail the physical is the cause.

Quote

One further note to add here--why thinking behavior (and brains) evolved in animals. Animals, as opposed to most plants, move around in a territory. They compete with each other for resources. They need a sophisticated guidance system, and they need to be able to manipulate objects in their environments. In other words, brains are needed to operate bodies that move. The human mind is certainly the most sophisticated guidance and danger-avoidance system that we know of. It does not seem reasonable to believe that there would be bodiless, brainless beings that would evolve the same kind of goal-directed behavior. That is, human characteristics are a product of a long chain of evolutionary development that meet the survival needs of life forms on a planetary surface. There is no reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect.

This just assumes evolution to be true a priori and thus makes the whole thing more question begging. Especially as one can see that If a Being desired creature's to move, compete, and needed guidance, He would design a guidance system for them as opposed to the things He did not intend to move around. Thus your model doesn't recieve more weight when it can be shown to work just as equally in the opposing model.

A nice attempt, but it seems you make the same fallacies as all atheists. Which just goes to show that atheism itself is founded on a fallacy.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2008, 02:24:25 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on November 19, 2008, 10:14:15 AM

Dotard,
i think it's mostly good stuff. Who posted it originally?

Thanks, Dan. It turns out that this is one of my old posts. I periodically work on a list of favorite positive empirical arguments against the belief that gods exist. These are not intended to be arguments that gods are illogical or can't possibly exist, but theists and others often try to construe them that way anyway. Also, it is worth pointing out that others have made these same arguments elsewhere. I just get a little tired of all the scholastic philosophical arguments over the impossibility of an omnimax God. Philosophers seem obsessed with the idea of probing God's illogicality, but I think it more interesting to probe his improbability.

Quote

Failure of Revelation

Absolutely agree. Links in very neatly with Cop's Geographical Argument thread. The standard response, as you have noted, is 'God (assuming he exists) can do whatever he wants', which neglects the question of why God would set up his one true religion to be virtually indistinguishable to the impartial observer to all the other 'false' ones.

It links well, because it is an earlier version of the geographical argument.

Quote

God as a Bad Explanation

i agree with this one, although i'm not sure that it works as an argument. Yes, historically we have increasingly abandoned God as an explanation every time the actual explanation for something has been discovered, but an observed trend does not necessarily imply a certain conclusion. Assuming that the answers which we do not yet have will also be naturalistic answers as part of an argument against the existence of God is begging the question.

It isn't really begging the question, because I'm not concluding that we will never discover a supernatural cause (i.e. one that appears to contravene physical laws in a dramatic fashion). I am pointing out that the record of failure--the trend itself--stands as evidence that we are unlikely to ever find one. This is a purely inductive argument, not a deductive one. The final nail in the coffin for theism has been the discovery of evolutionary design, which explains natural designs in our world better than the intelligent design argument. Even so, most theists today still cling to intelligent design as intuitively plausible.

Quote

Not that i think the aforementioned trend is something that i would be especially comfortable about if i were a theist.

The discomfort is there because the argument works as a purely inductive exercise. You are right to point out that one cannot logically deduce naturalism by starting with a presumption of naturalism.

Quote

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers

i don't like this one, because i think it argues probabilities which we have no way of assessing. It states that it is extremely unlikely that mind can exist without brain, based on our experience of the contingent relationships we observe between minds and brains, but for me that is a bit like creationists arguments against the emergence of new species. Actually, it's not as bad as that, because speciation has been observed - creationists just pretend that it hasn't and that therefore it can't, but i digress. i guess i think it's a little anthropocentric to assume that a theoretical deity would conform to our experience of the world.

Again, I think that you are looking to hard for a logical proof, when an empirical one was intended. Empirical arguments depend on experience, but one can never logically conclude that the outcome of an experiment (or experience) will always be the same just because outcomes have been the same in the past. Regarding your last sentence, I would ask you to consider whether we can ever conceive of a deity that does not incorporate anthropomorphism. The further away we abstract the concept of "deity" from a human-like mentality, the less the term "deity" applies to it. So I do not think it anthropocentric to think of gods as idealized sentient beings. They are agents who think, feel, and act as physical animate beings do.

Quote

Mind you, i think that the mind-brain correlation is a very good argument against life after death.

It is, although diehards (pun intended) will argue that a mind might somehow be transferred into another physical substrate at the point of death. I believe that cimics has defended that possibility here in the past. Again, one can never eliminate the logical possibility, and these arguments have not been offered as such.

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2008, 02:38:14 PM »

On the geographical claim:

Quote from: End Bringer on November 19, 2008, 12:52:31 PM

...First you are admitting that a theistic/supernatural belief in some form has existed all over the globe before atheism...

Worse yet, I have actually asserted this fact repeatedly. Note: atheism only exists as a reaction to theism. Atheism is the rejection of belief in gods. One cannot reject a claim before it is made, although I do believe that you are predisposed to do that. Hence, theism, by definition, must exist before atheism. Bear in mind that I do not define atheism as a mere lack of belief in gods, as some atheists like to define it. I define it as a rejection of belief in gods.

Quote

...Thus by your own standard this would seem to give more weight to any theistic belief over atheism. Cake, eatin it too...

Nope. I have not argued for the truth of any claim based on its general popularity. There are very good reasons why belief in gods would be popular in human society even if gods do not exist, and I have discussed this extensively in other threads. I think that Daniel Dennett does a particularly good job of explaining the ubiquity of the belief in his book Breaking the Spell.

End Bringer · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2008, 03:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on November 19, 2008, 02:38:14 PM

Nope. I have not argued for the truth of any claim based on its general popularity.

And my observation is not dependent on that either. You assert that for a theistic belief to be credible it whould appear all over the world. That is your standard, and by your own assertion of atheism you admit that a theistic belief in some form has existed all over the world first for atheism to crop up as a result. Just as Dennet, you presuppose something, then come up with an ad hoc to prove it, but miss the double standard. Truly sad.

Dicoll · « **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2008, 09:44:44 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 19, 2008, 03:03:49 PM

..... you admit that a theistic belief in some form has existed all over the world first for atheism to crop up as a result.....

Just like a disease that has to be present and identified before a vaccine can be developed.

Atheism is a defensive reaction to theism.

Why can't you get that EB

End Bringer · « **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2008, 09:52:18 PM »

Quote from: Dicoll on November 19, 2008, 09:44:44 PM

Why can't you get that EB

Probably because atheism has been long proven not to "cure" anything and to hold to the analogy is equivalent to blood-letting.

Why can't you get that?

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2008, 11:23:59 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 19, 2008, 03:03:49 PM

...You assert that for a theistic belief to be credible it whould appear all over the world. That is your standard, and by your own assertion of atheism you admit that a theistic belief in some form has existed all over the world first for atheism to crop up as a result. Just as Dennet, you presuppose something, then come up with an ad hoc to prove it, but miss the double standard. Truly sad.

OK, I'll type more slowly so that you can follow a little more easily. I said that false religions all spread from a single time and place because they are clearly inventions of human imagination, not the product of divine revelation. There is no apparent reason why God would choose to reveal himself in exactly the same manner as all those false religions. Indeed, one would expect an omnipotent being to see how fishy that would look. This is not saying that "to be credible it would appear all over the world". It is saying that the Jewish and Christian religions follow a pattern of geographical distribution that is identical to all the other religions--false religions, according to Christians and Jews. Hence, the simplest explanation of the Abrahamic religions is that they all spring from false revelation, just like all the others that spread that way.

OK. I can tell by your blank stare that you still don't get it. I tried, EB. Perhaps the argument will sink in over time.

End Bringer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 20, 2008, 12:16:33 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on November 19, 2008, 11:23:59 PM

OK, I'll type more slowly so that you can follow a little more easily. I said that false religions all spread from a single time and place because they are clearly inventions of human imagination, not the product of divine revelation.

And again you avoid the same problems: any news spread from a single time and place. Not because they are inventions but because that's how reality works. And as you are admitting that theistic beliefs have existed all over before atheism came up, by your own standard that would indeed give any theistic belief more credibility than atheism. And I've yet to hear where you state the single place and time that theism itself was "invented". Can you?

Quote

There is no apparent reason why God would choose to reveal himself in exactly the same manner as all those false religions.

Yet, on the other side to that you can think of nothing that restricts Him from doing so. You just presume He wouldn't which reveals the main problem to your whole arguement: question begging.

Quote

Indeed, one would expect an omnipotent being to see how fishy that would look.

One would expect an intelligent being to see how irrelevant it is. This may clear up why you can't seem to grasp it.

Quote

This is not saying that "to be credible it would appear all over the world". It is saying that the Jewish and Christian religions follow a pattern of geographical distribution that is identical to all the other religions--false religions, according to Christians and Jews. Hence, the simplest explanation of the Abrahamic religions is that they all spring from false revelation, just like all the others that spread that way.

You can try not contradicting yourself in the same breath. As you are indeed argueing that "to be credible it would appear all over the world" in a spontaneous manner at that. That's the whole point when you bring up "God wouldn't restrict himself to a single area". Either you truly are an idiot for not even grasping the main implication to your own arguement, or you think those reading it are idiots and will miss it. I'm inclined to think the latter myself.

Once again all "geographical distribution" shows is that's how human socialization and news spreading works. It reveals absolutely nothing about the claim itself.

Quote

OK. I can tell by your blank stare that you still don't get it. I tried, EB. Perhaps the argument will sink in over time.

Try a lot of eye rolling, as that's the main reaction I have to this, and most other arguements you make. Especially given how you still don't seem to get that truth-claims itself have nothing to do with geography. You just try to find reasons by proxy to dismiss, because you're truly afraid to look at the claims on their own merit.

Dicoll · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2008, 07:32:19 AM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 19, 2008, 09:52:18 PM

Probably because atheism has been long proven not to "cure" anything and to hold to the analogy is equivalent to blood-letting.
Why can't you get that?

Well, it cured me and many others so how can you make such a claim?
Open your mind, it works.
You should try it.

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** November 20, 2008, 10:48:41 AM »

Quote from: Dicoll on November 20, 2008, 07:32:19 AM

Well, it cured me and many others so how can you make such a claim?

Because you aren't "cured", you're just in a state of delusion and think you are. As proven by the long time criticisim that religious people behave the same way as secularistic people. Given such grandoise visions atheist's had for the last century of people being "unshackled from superstition" and that other religions would be completely abandoned, it makes atheism's failure to change anything clear.

Quote

Open your mind, it works.
You should try it.

How ironic given that atheism by it's very nature is closed-minded to God and the supernatural existing. As such it makes such comments rather back-handed and hypocritical.

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2008, 12:35:03 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 20, 2008, 12:16:33 AM

...You just try to find reasons by proxy to dismiss, because you're truly afraid to look at the claims on their own merit.

I cannot think of a better description of exactly how you have responded to this and other arguments I have made, EB. Whether on purpose or not, you do not address the point being made, but the point you wish had been made. For example, in response to the point that there is no apparent reason why God would choose to spread his religion in exactly the same manner as false religions are spread, you do not try to come up with a reason. You do not admit that there isn't. Instead, you argue that I have not shown any impediment to God making that choice. Well, there is no impediment to him making any choice one way or the other. The question is still why he would choose to spread knowledge of his existence by exactly the same means that false beliefs are spread.

And you do indeed appear to be truly afraid to look at my arguments on their own merits.

End Bringer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 20, 2008, 01:34:00 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on November 20, 2008, 12:35:03 PM

I cannot think of a better description of exactly how you have responded to this and other arguments I have made, EB. Whether on purpose or not, you do not address the point being made, but the point you wish had been made.

Yes, that you actually address relevant points is something I deeply wish for. Sadly you seem to disappoint at every turn.

Quote

For example, in response to the point that there is no apparent reason why God would choose to spread his religion in exactly the same manner as false religions are spread, you do not try to come up with a reason. You do not admit that there isn't.

Actually I have, but unsuprisingly you ignored it. I'll repeat it for your benefit: One can see that in not differentiating method of distrubution shows confidence that the religion itself inherently distinguashes it. Basicly meaning your criticizing about how the message comes to us, while ignoring the message itself, but all that matters in authenticating the message is the message itself.

And your appeal to apparency is utterly meaningless as that doesn't preclude there being any reason at all. But then we aren't the one's who can see the larger picture and have an intended plan being carried out.

Quote

Instead, you argue that I have not shown any impediment to God making that choice. Well, there is no impediment to him making any choice one way or the other. The question is still why he would choose to spread knowledge of his existence by exactly the same means that false beliefs are spread.

One can see it can be for the same reason any news travels: that's how reality works. And I would say it's miscontrueing knowledge of His existence as, again, your standard shows that theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe in one form or another. That the religion gives more of a clariofication of Him, is a bit different then not knowing His existance at bare minimum. But then as already addressed this arguement is simply you having your cake and eating it too.

Quote

And you do indeed appear to be truly afraid to look at my arguments on their own merits.

I seem to be doing just that, and rather successfully tearing it apart as further evidenced by you avoiding several of my points. Though I'm still waiting for you to make an arguement that actually has merit.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** November 20, 2008, 02:30:55 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 20, 2008, 01:34:00 PM

...One can see that in not differentiating method of distrubution shows confidence that the religion itself inherently distinguashes it...

That makes no sense at all. Why would a "show of confidence" be needed or desirable when he knew that folks on the other side of the planet would not receive the message for centuries? God, being omniscient, would know this. You seem to be tossing these things out in the hopes that something will stick. A better tactic would be to actually consider whether your argument makes sense before offering it up for consideration.

Quote

Basicly meaning your criticizing about how the message comes to us, while ignoring the message itself, but all that matters in authenticating the message is the message itself.

Nonsense. This is tantamount to saying that God could have slipped the message in a bottle and tossed it into the ocean. That would be a real "show of confidence", wouldn't it.

Your problem in trying to defend your position is that the message got spread unevenly. That is a fact. In principle, God could have chosen a different, more effective means. That follows from his omnipotence. What you are forced to say in the end is a paraphrase of the famous Westphalian philosopher, Dr. Pangloss: God chose the best of all possible means to spread his message. We do not know what is possible for an omnipotent being, but we must conclude that nothing better was possible, because that is what an omnipotent being chose to do. There now. I've helped you along with your argument. Isn't that roughly what you would like to say?

Quote

And your appeal to apparency is utterly meaningless as that doesn't preclude there being any reason at all. But then we aren't the one's who can see the larger picture and have an intended plan being carried out.

Exactly so, Dr. Pangloss. In order to retain your faith in God, you are driven to believe that. You just can't come up with any plausible reason. That is the nature of Procrustean logic. The argument must always be cut and shaped to fit the conclusions. Hence, there must be some hidden premise that makes the implausible conclusion plausible.

Quote

Instead, you argue that I have not shown any impediment to God making that choice. Well, there is no impediment to him making any choice one way or the other. The question is still why he would choose to spread knowledge of his existence by exactly the same means that false beliefs are spread.

One can see it can be for the same reason any news travels: that's how reality works...

I see. It must have been hard for God to swallow that realization.

He was supposed to be the creator and master of reality. He is not supposed to be bound by the way reality is, is he? Once again, you just confirm the fact that you have no argument in support of God's existence, because you always start with the assumption that God exists and work backwards from there. Your conclusion becomes the premise, and your premise the conclusion.

Quote

... And I would say it's miscontrueing knowledge of His existence as, again, your standard shows that theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe in one form or another. That the religion gives more of a clariofication of Him, is a bit different then not knowing His existance at bare minimum. But then as already addressed this arguement is simply you having your cake and eating it too.

My "standard" does not show that theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe. History shows us that false theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe. The question is why your particular theistic belief ought to be judged truer than any of the others, not whether some are truer than others. The ugly fact remains that your religion has behaved just like all of its false competitors. Where revelation of divine origin has failed quite spectacularly for all the others throughout time and location, you want us to believe that your story of divine revelation is true. That is what makes your case so implausible on the face of it. This discussion has been about how you address the seeming implausibility of your claim. Other than to just fall back on faith, that is. Like true believers of all the false religions, you do have that final refuge.

End Bringer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2008, 04:36:13 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on November 20, 2008, 02:30:55 PM

That makes no sense at all. Why would a "show of confidence" be needed or desirable when he knew that folks on the other side of the planet would not receive the message for centuries? God, being omniscient, would know this. You seem to be tossing these things out in the hopes that something will stick. A better tactic would be to actually consider whether your argument makes sense before offering it up for consideration.

I have, which is why I can easily see that you miss the fact that God has no obligation to save any of us. Thus God has no obligation to jump ahead of the messenge system He chose to impliment. As there is no obligation, then it's entirely within His perogative to give special attention to a group or area and let it spread from there. And He equally knew that there would be those who wouldn't accpet the message even after hearing it.

Quote

Nonsense. This is tantamount to saying that God could have slipped the message in a bottle and tossed it into the ocean. That would be a real "show of confidence", wouldn't it.

Given how bottles weren't made back then indeed it would be.

Quote

Your problem in trying to defend your position is that the message got spread unevenly. That is a fact. In principle, God could have chosen a different, more effective means. That follows from his omnipotence.

Which is quickly countered once again, by the fact that God has no obligation to spread the message "evenly". Of course following from His omnipotence He could catch every ball ever dropped. That He would is another matter.

Quote

What you are forced to say in the end is a paraphrase of the famous Westphalian philosopher, Dr. Pangloss: God chose the best of all possible means to spread his message. We do not know what is possible for an omnipotent being, but we must conclude that nothing better was possible, because that is what an omnipotent being chose to do. There now. I've helped you along with your argument. Isn't that roughly what you would like to say?

It does address the issue, but it's not a point I need make. You're failing quite spectacularly for other more obvious reasons.

Quote

Exactly so, Dr. Pangloss. In order to retain your faith in God, you are driven to believe that. You just can't come up with any plausible reason.

I've seem to have come up with one or two. You just don't agree with it, because you presume to know better.

Quote

I see. It must have been hard for God to swallow that realization. He was supposed to be the creator and master of reality. He is not supposed to be bound by the way reality is, is he?

Once again missing the glarring obvious. If He's not bound it means no outside influence restricts Him. That He can restrict Himself is purely internal, and thus means He can operate both outside and inside when He so chooses. In which case He 's bound by the way He is.

Quote

Once again, you just confirm the fact that you have no argument in support of God's existence, because you always start with the assumption that God exists and work backwards from there. Your conclusion becomes the premise, and your premise the conclusion.

I love how at the begginning you came off with the attitude that this "geographical arguement" (in truth it became a theoretical arguement the moment you said "Why would God...") didn't disprove anything, but just cast doubt, and now you come off as if you've proven something.

And no, we are both opperating under the premises of God's existence at this point. You made that quite clear when you asked:

"...he knew that folks on the other side of the planet would not receive the message for centuries?"

Because you presume to know what an omnipotent omniscient infinite Being would do if He existed. Given you're not any of these adjectives, all I can do is smile and shake my head at the absurdity.

Quote

My "standard" does not show that theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe. History shows us that false theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe.

So your conclusion becomes your premises? That sounds familiar.

Quote

The question is why your particular theistic belief ought to be judged truer than any of the others, not whether some are truer than others.

Pretty much because my particular theistic belief corresponds with the way reality is, and is historically true. You'll notice tribes in the Amazon hearing about it, has little to do with it.

Quote

The ugly fact remains that your religion has behaved just like all of its false competitors.

Pretty much because that's how getting the message to people works in reality. But once again we see the double-standard that your not questioning the existence of your mailman.

Quote

Where revelation of divine origin has failed quite spectacularly for all the others throughout time and location, you want us to believe that your story of divine revelation is true.

This kind of statement only makes me respond with "Duh", because that's pretty much the nature of the law of exclusion. Thankfully my faith's attestation of divine revelation is much stronger than other beliefs. Which again, points to the fact that you fear looking at the claim on it's own merit.

Quote

That is what makes your case so implausible on the face of it. This discussion has been about how you address the seeming implausibility of your claim.

No it hasn't. It's been about you presuming what God would do, and if it doesn't mesh with what you would do it therefore must be "implausible". Not that "plausability" ever means much to addressing if a thing is true or not. You've never read much Sherlock Holmes have you Cop?

Quote

Other than to just fall back on faith, that is. Like true believers of all the false religions, you do have that final refuge.

As well as true believers of the true religion. Because you recognize it as a point you can't overcome, but decide to stick with your inherently flawed presupposition anyway, though I don't seem to be taking "refuge" in that particular aspect anyway.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2008, 05:30:06 PM »

Failure of Revelation
Revelation--receiving direct communication from gods--has failed on a colossal scale over human history. First of all, it is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation (if not all revelation) from God or gods has been false.

Baby steps. Sometimes that is necessary. So.. baby steps. Christians DON'T believe in "gods". However, they should.. and they do. But not the way you address it. So.. baby steps. :)

The failure, I suggest, to answer your line of thinking here is what fits well with history... what fits well with the world view. I think that the Christian God, not "god" or "gods" does well at any approach. God is good landing for any plane... and from my pov.. if you pilot badly.. God still knows how to heal and save... :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2008, 07:47:37 PM »

Zag, why do you think that God paid such special attention to the Hebrew branch of Semites? Do you have any idea why he couldn't have taken more than one "baby step"? For example, why not a "baby step" in the Yucatan peninsula, so that the native culture there could have had the benefit of salvation? You still seem not to have come to grips with the actual argument. The way in which the Abrahamic religions spread was no different from the way in which all false religions have spread. Can you think of any reason why God needed to, or might have wanted to, follow that same pattern of distribution for his "true" revelations? It is not as if Jews and Christians have been the only human beings in history to claim revelation from a god. So, what why at that time and in that location? Any ideas?

Bear in mind that all those other gods--the false ones--tended to be gods attached to specific tribes, cities, and nations. They were invented by locals, who imagined the gods to take a special interest in their particular culture. The Hebrew god, according to tradition, was the one and ONLY god for the entire human race. So it doesn't make much sense to think that he would be as tribe-oriented as other gods. A reasonable explanation for why he was tribe-oriented was that he started out as a tribal god and became a single, universal deity at a time when monotheism was beginning to catch on. If that is true, then a literal interpretation of the Bible seems inappropriate, doesn't it?

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2008, 09:57:51 PM »

Quote from: End Bringer on November 20, 2008, 04:36:13 PM

I have, which is why I can easily see that you miss the fact that God has no obligation to save any of us. Thus God has no obligation to jump ahead of the messenge system He chose to impliment. As there is no obligation, then it's entirely within His perogative to give special attention to a group or area and let it spread from there. And He equally knew that there would be those who wouldn't accpet the message even after hearing it.

I never claimed that God had an obligation to do anything at all, so I don't know where this is coming from. As far as I'm concerned, God wasn't obligated to deliver any revelations at all to us. The question here is over why he chose to deliver his revelations in a manner that made them look so similar to the false revelations of other religions.

Quote

Given how bottles weren't made back then indeed it would be.

The first bottles appeared in about 1500 BC, which made them contemporary with the origins of the earliest biblical stories. However, God was a smart guy from what I hear, so he just possibly could have invented them before humans came up with the idea. Again, why don't you apply a little critical thinking to your arguments before you make them? Why make others do all the work?

Quote

What you are forced to say in the end is a paraphrase of the famous Westphalian philosopher, Dr. Pangloss: God chose the best of all possible means to spread his message. We do not know what is possible for an omnipotent being, but we must conclude that nothing better was possible, because that is what an omnipotent being chose to do. There now. I've helped you along with your argument. Isn't that roughly what you would like to say?

It does address the issue, but it's not a point I need make. You're failing quite spectacularly for other more obvious reasons.

Need to or not, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge agreement with the point, even if very grudgingly.

Quote

Exactly so, Dr. Pangloss. In order to retain your faith in God, you are driven to believe that. You just can't come up with any plausible reason.

I've seem to have come up with one or two. You just don't agree with it, because you presume to know better.

Nope. You haven't come up with any. All you've come up with is the observation that God was under no obligation to do anything different, which is irrelevant to the current discussion. He was under no obligation to do what he did do, either.

Quote

Once again missing the glarring obvious. If He's not bound it means no outside influence restricts Him. That He can restrict Himself is purely internal, and thus means He can operate both outside and inside when He so chooses. In which case He 's bound by the way He is.

Right, Dr. Pangloss. He can only do the best of all possible things he can do, so he must not have been able to do better than he did, even if you can't think of a reason why an omnipotent being would be incapable of pulling off a second set of revelations somewhere else.

Quote

...we are both opperating under the premises of God's existence at this point. You made that quite clear when you asked:

"...he knew that folks on the other side of the planet would not receive the message for centuries?"

Because you presume to know what an omnipotent omniscient infinite Being would do if He existed. Given you're not any of these adjectives, all I can do is smile and shake my head at the absurdity.

No, you could learn the difference between a hypothetical situation and reality. Actually, I think you know the difference. You just aren't thinking very clearly, and you feel a need to justify yourself.

Quote

My "standard" does not show that theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe. History shows us that false theistic beliefs have existed all over the globe.

So your conclusion becomes your premises? That sounds familiar.

What do you think the premise and conclusion are that I switched? Can you name them?

Quote

The question is why your particular theistic belief ought to be judged truer than any of the others, not whether some are truer than others.

Pretty much because my particular theistic belief corresponds with the way reality is, and is historically true. You'll notice tribes in the Amazon hearing about it, has little to do with it.

So it is your position that Amazonian tribes would not be able to make the facile claim that their religion corresponds with the way reality is and is historically true? Is that what you really believe?

Quote

The ugly fact remains that your religion has behaved just like all of its false competitors.

Pretty much because that's how getting the message to people works in reality. But once again we see the double-standard that your not questioning the existence of your mailman.

Nobody questions what reality is. The question here is why reality would be that way if your kind of god really existed. The best you can do so far is to claim that God was under no obligation to do anything differently from what he did, and you don't really know why he did what he did.

Quote

Where revelation of divine origin has failed quite spectacularly for all the others throughout time and location, you want us to believe that your story of divine revelation is true.

This kind of statement only makes me respond with "Duh", because that's pretty much the nature of the law of exclusion. Thankfully my faith's attestation of divine revelation is much stronger than other beliefs. Which again, points to the fact that you fear looking at the claim on it's own merit.

Your reply is incomprehensible. You have not established what the "law of exclusion" is or how it applies to the present argument. As for strength of belief, I doubt that you will convince anyone that your strength of belief is stronger than that of those who have died or submitted to torture for their beliefs. Even if you could, strength of belief is no guarantee that the belief is true, because many have died and suffered agony in defense of false beliefs.

Quote

You've never read much Sherlock Holmes have you Cop?

I've read the entire series, and I doubt that you are more familiar with it than I am. I've had more time to devote to the subject.

End Bringer · « **Reply #19 on:** November 21, 2008, 01:25:50 AM »

Quote from: Copernicus on November 20, 2008, 09:57:51 PM

I never claimed that God had an obligation to do anything at all, so I don't know where this is coming from.

From your continued questioning of why God wouldn't personally visited the native culture of the Yucatan peninsula instead of the Hebrews.

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, God wasn't obligated to deliver any revelations at all to us.

Great. Now you should be able to see why your continued harping about the revelation comming to only one particular group or area is meaningless.

Quote

The question here is over why he chose to deliver his revelations in a manner that made them look so similar to the false revelations of other religions.

Then again, maybe not. But hey, you proven that you need things spelled out for you again and again and again. So what's once more? One can see that just shows confidence that the revelation itself is inherently different rather than on the manner in which it was given. But once again you just rather frame your view and arguements to dismiss by proxy.

Quote

The first bottles appeared in about 1500 BC, which made them contemporary with the origins of the earliest biblical stories.

Plastic bottles were made back then? Really?

Quote

Need to or not, I'm glad to see that you acknowledge agreement with the point, even if very grudgingly.

Why wouldn't I? It's valid, but you seem to smugly think you've proven something by simply getting to this point rather than overcoming it.

Quote

Nope. You haven't come up with any. All you've come up with is the observation that God was under no obligation to do anything different, which is irrelevant to the current discussion.

Seeing how your whole discussion is founded on that the revelation was made in a particular area then presume that it would be more "plausable" to be spontaneously around the globe, it is indeed relevant that there is no obligation to make God do so. Worse yet, you acknowledge this fact, but miss it's implication on the premises of your arguement. But once again it's not so surprising given how you seem to be unable to grasp the basic implication to your own arguement.

Quote

He was under no obligation to do what he did do, either.

Indeed. So it makes questioning about why the people in the Yucatan peninsula or anywhere else were 'neglected' all the more meaningless.

Quote

Right, Dr. Pangloss. He can only do the best of all possible things he can do, so he must not have been able to do better than he did, even if you can't think of a reason why an omnipotent being would be incapable of pulling off a second set of revelations somewhere else.

See? We're back to you missing the glaring obvious when you just conceded that God has no obligation to do so. I never once said God was "incapable". He's indeed capable of doing so and catching every ball dropped if He chooses to do so. That He has no obligation to do so means that when it doesn't happen, it doesn't prove anything. Why don't you try doing some actual thinking to your arguements instead of having me do all the work?

Quote

No, you could learn the difference between a hypothetical situation and reality. Actually, I think you know the difference. You just aren't thinking very clearly, and you feel a need to justify yourself.

Is that why you wrote "He was under no obligation to do what he did do, either." So I could justify myself?

Come on Cop. Admit it. You got caught with your pants down in your criticism. No one's going to laugh. To your face.

Quote

What do you think the premise and conclusion are that I switched? Can you name them?

Sure. You start out with the premises of every claim of revelation from a false religion spreading a certain way, thus assuming it's a false religion automatically, then you end with every revelation spreading a certain way being false.

Quote

So it is your position that Amazonian tribes would not be able to make the facile claim that their religion corresponds with the way reality is and is historically true? Is that what you really believe?

No, that's just the answer you get when you ask why any belief should actually be judged true and other's not. Not just mine.

When it comes down to actually verifying the claim of being true and historically corroborated you'll notice that it comes to investigating *gasp* the beliefs and claims themselves rather than the manner it's recieved. And hey, I'm more than happy to judge the beliefs of human sacrifices and flying snakes responsable for the weather on their own merit along with mine.

Quote

Nobody questions what reality is. The question here is why reality would be that way if your kind of god really existed. The best you can do so far is to claim that God was under no obligation to do anything differently from what he did, and you don't really know why he did what he did.

Sure I do. He wanted people to have a means of salvation, and thus made a covenant with a particular group of people not only to spread His message, but to bring threw them the means for that salvation. That's another aspect you haven't considered: if the Messiah was only going to come about threw one particular tribe, and in one particular place it would indeed make a lot of sense to focus a lot of attention on the tribe that would bring about the Messiah's existence years beforehand. Because that was the plan.

Quote

Your reply is incomprehensible. You have not established what the "law of exclusion" is or how it applies to the present argument.

I'll type more slowly. The law of exclusion means if something is true, then everthing else is false. If my religion is true, then it follows that everything else would indeed be false, because mutual exclusion means they can't all be true.

Quote

As for strength of belief, I doubt that you will convince anyone that your strength of belief is stronger than that of those who have died or submitted to torture for their beliefs. Even if you could, strength of belief is no guarantee that the belief is true, because many have died and suffered agony in defense of false beliefs.

True, thankfully you misconstrue "attestation" as it's actually referring to the number of people who witnessed divine revelation. Or just miracles. You know? Thousands of witnesses see food given to all from just one basket. Throngs of people seeing Christ's very public actions. Things like that.

Quote

I've read the entire series, and I doubt that you are more familiar with it than I am. I've had more time to devote to the subject.

Apparently I am if you missed the basic "...whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" principle and never realized the implication for what that means when using "plausability" for determining truth.

And yes, you're very old. Which makes the fact that a person twice my age isn't as wise or smart as I am deeply depressing, yet equally gratifying at the same time.

Author Topic: Arguements (Read 3355 times)