PDA

View Full Version : Atheists: Build Me A God



Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 08:35 AM
Atheists: Build Me A God (1)
What would a believable god look like to you?
What would a god with 'street cred' look like?

Would he be all sunshine and lollypops?
Would he allow free will?
Would he look like an old man, old woman, transgender?

I think coming up with a god that you skeptics will buy is tough work.
I want to be in the skeptics seat for once - sell me on your ideal.





NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: No, I'm not talking about the new Audi A4.

Sparko
05-23-2016, 08:38 AM
:popcorn:

rogue06
05-23-2016, 09:57 AM
:movies:

Christianbookworm
05-23-2016, 10:15 AM
A combination of Silver Age Superman and Aladdin's Genie! :outtie:

Are there poeple that really think God should be like that????

Carrikature
05-23-2016, 10:17 AM
What's the origin of this god? Anything?

Christianbookworm
05-23-2016, 10:18 AM
What's the origin of this god? Anything?

God doesn't need an origin story.

Now, the god that some people seem to want...

Carrikature
05-23-2016, 10:42 AM
God doesn't need an origin story.

Now, the god that some people seem to want...

No deity needs an origin story, but it's a useful question to narrow down what kind of gods I can present.

Christianbookworm
05-23-2016, 10:54 AM
No deity needs an origin story, but it's a useful question to narrow down what kind of gods I can present.

The diety that's really just a sufficiently advanced alien? A mere incredibly powerful being with powerd and abilities beyond those of mortal men? A panthestic diety? Deism?

Sparko
05-23-2016, 11:01 AM
The diety that's really just a sufficiently advanced alien? A mere incredibly powerful being with powerd and abilities beyond those of mortal men? A panthestic diety? Deism?Let the atheists define their god without our help or input. I think Gerbil wants to find out what kind of God would they come up with if they had to define/design their own God. Origins and all if they want. But I think Gerbil is more interested in his properties, personality, and powers.

They already know what we believe our God is like and think he doesn't exist and can't exist. So he wants to know what kind of God would exist if the atheists could decide and build one from scratch.

Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 11:15 AM
What's the origin of this god? Anything?
You get to choose.

Carrikature
05-23-2016, 11:22 AM
You get to choose.

This should be fun. I'll be back.

firstfloor
05-23-2016, 11:25 AM
What would a believable god look like to you?God is what you see when you look in a mirror. Just like voting, everyone gets one God. Christians spend their whole lives denying the obvious truth.

Sparko
05-23-2016, 11:27 AM
God is what you see when you look in a mirror. Just like voting, everyone gets one God. Christians spend their whole lives denying the obvious truth.wel then. My God can beat up your God.

Christianbookworm
05-23-2016, 11:41 AM
wel then. My God can beat up your God.

My God can defeat everybody!

firstfloor
05-23-2016, 11:44 AM
wel then. My God can beat up your God.True. I definitely have the most useless God on the planet.

Jedidiah
05-23-2016, 11:48 AM
No deity needs an origin story, but it's a useful question to narrow down what kind of gods I can present.

You are the only judge here, and all the criteria are to be from you.

Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 11:48 AM
True. I definitely have the most useless God on the planet.
Was that a bit of humor?
You may have to trade in your angry cat picture for a happy cat.

Chrawnus
05-23-2016, 12:32 PM
Was that a bit of humor?
You may have to trade in your angry cat picture for a happy cat.

A bit of humor? Trolling is a form of humor, even if it is a crass form of humor, and FF has been trolling on this forum ever since he joined. :shrug:

firstfloor
05-23-2016, 02:14 PM
A bit of humor? Trolling is a form of humor, even if it is a crass form of humor, and FF has been trolling on this forum ever since he joined. :shrug:I think you have a pretty low ‘trolling’ threshold. Just about anything I write counts in your book. So I’m doing a bit of image improvement here and introducing ‘happy cat’ as Meh Gerbil suggested. I hope this helps.

Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 03:08 PM
I think you have a pretty low ‘trolling’ threshold. Just about anything I write counts in your book. So I’m doing a bit of image improvement here and introducing ‘happy cat’ as Meh Gerbil suggested. I hope this helps.This made my day.

Chrawnus
05-23-2016, 03:33 PM
I think you have a pretty low ‘trolling’ threshold. Just about anything I write counts in your book. So I’m doing a bit of image improvement here and introducing ‘happy cat’ as Meh Gerbil suggested. I hope this helps.

If you want to troll someone with pictures of cats as bait you might want to choose your targets more carefully. Might I suggest Teal?











:outtie:

Meh Gerbil
05-23-2016, 06:11 PM
If some atheists don't present us with some new gods then I win the internet.
Sorry, those are the rules.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 09:29 AM
If some atheists don't present us with some new gods then I win the internet.
Sorry, those are the rules.
They are scared to.

Christianbookworm
05-24-2016, 09:45 AM
They are scared to.

Are they scared I'll pick out which fictional character their "god" is most like?

Sparko
05-24-2016, 10:00 AM
Are they scared I'll pick out which fictional character their "god" is most like?no. they are afraid that Gerbil has laid a trap for them.

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 10:40 AM
Atheists: Build Me A God (1)
What would a believable god look like to you?
What would a god with 'street cred' look like?

Would he be all sunshine and lollypops?
Would he allow free will?
Would he look like an old man, old woman, transgender?

I think coming up with a god that you skeptics will buy is tough work.
I want to be in the skeptics seat for once - sell me on your ideal.





NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: No, I'm not talking about the new Audi A4.


Where 'believable' requires:
1) Internal consistency
2) Abilities that don't contradict what we know of how the world works, and
3) Reasonable possibility of actual existence,

and 'street cred' is "worthy of respect and/or worship" due to one of:
4) actively aiding all creations,
5) actively aiding humans only,
6) actively aiding worshippers only, or
7) generally cool behavior


the options are pretty broad. A lot of deities in existing pantheons would need some cleanup work to meet #2. Poseidon is one such example. The Christian God fails #1, but that could be fixed if you dropped an Omni- or two. Helpful angels generally meet these criteria, I'd say.

I'd like to point out that 'street cred' isn't a requirement for a believable god. I could totally get on board with a creator deity that makes things because that's its nature without any regard for what happens afterward. A god that doesn't influence humans but sits in judgment of the dead could even get street cred for imparting some sense of justice upon the world (#7).

Believable is easy.


As for ideal? I'd suggest some form of Prometheus. A being genuinely interested in guiding its creations to success, where that success aims at harmony with existence. The specific form would not be specific since it would vary based on the specific needs of the time.

Meh Gerbil
05-24-2016, 11:18 AM
Where 'believable' requires:
1) Internal consistency
2) Abilities that don't contradict what we know of how the world works, and
3) Reasonable possibility of actual existence,

and 'street cred' is "worthy of respect and/or worship" due to one of:
4) actively aiding all creations,
5) actively aiding humans only,
6) actively aiding worshippers only, or
7) generally cool behavior


the options are pretty broad. A lot of deities in existing pantheons would need some cleanup work to meet #2. Poseidon is one such example. The Christian God fails #1, but that could be fixed if you dropped an Omni- or two. Helpful angels generally meet these criteria, I'd say.

I'd like to point out that 'street cred' isn't a requirement for a believable god. I could totally get on board with a creator deity that makes things because that's its nature without any regard for what happens afterward. A god that doesn't influence humans but sits in judgment of the dead could even get street cred for imparting some sense of justice upon the world (#7).

Believable is easy.


As for ideal? I'd suggest some form of Prometheus. A being genuinely interested in guiding its creations to success, where that success aims at harmony with existence. The specific form would not be specific since it would vary based on the specific needs of the time.
We got him now, boys!

Sparko
05-24-2016, 11:50 AM
We got him now, boys!He didn't mention the donuts. I want donuts. A God that won't give us donuts is not a God to believe in.

firstfloor
05-24-2016, 12:00 PM
If some atheists don't present us with some new gods then I win the internet.
Sorry, those are the rules.How exactly do you expect an atheist to present you with a new God? How many Gods do you need? Has your own one stopped working? Have you tried the God repair shop? Can you get spare parts at Amazon?

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 12:05 PM
How exactly do you expect an atheist to present you with a new God? How many Gods do you need? Has your own one stopped working? Have you tried the God repair shop? Can you get spare parts at Amazon?

:rofl:

Sparko
05-24-2016, 12:09 PM
How exactly do you expect an atheist to present you with a new God? How many Gods do you need? Has your own one stopped working? Have you tried the God repair shop? Can you get spare parts at Amazon?
Apparently our God IS broken according to you guys. So I think Gerbil wants to see if you can come up with a better one.

He HAS to give out free donuts though. That is a non-negotiable point. Jelly filled.

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 12:10 PM
Apparently our God IS broken according to you guys. So I think Gerbil wants to see if you can come up with a better one.

He HAS to give out free donuts though. That is a non-negotiable point. Jelly filled.

I don't think your god is broken. I just don't think he is everything you think he is.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 12:13 PM
I don't think your god is broken. I just don't think he is everything you think he is.I don't think he is all that atheists try to make him out to be. I think they go overboard in order to burn straw. Like claiming he is "omnibenevolent" so they can complain he is inconsistent because he punishes evil and allows pain and suffering. I don't recall the bible ever say he was omnibenevolent.

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 12:20 PM
I don't think he is all that atheists try to make him out to be. I think they go overboard in order to burn straw. Like claiming he is "omnibenevolent" so they can complain he is inconsistent because he punishes evil and allows pain and suffering. I don't recall the bible ever say he was omnibenevolent.

We've talked about omnibenevolent before. As I recall, you denied the idea then proceeded to defend the concepts inherent in it. We've talked before about what heaven looks like, where you described what you think our bodies would be. Your only reference point was Jesus in his returned state, even while you admitted that he was a special case. The Bible doesn't say there's a trinity, and it took a few hundred years for people to piece together that particular belief, yet it's a necessary position for orthodoxy these days. The Bible says nothing about Immaculate Conception, yet millions of people believe that. The Bible says nothing at all about dinosaurs, yet people claim there must have been some on Noah's Ark.

The Bible doesn't say a lot of things that adherents nonetheless believe. That's kinda my point.

Sparko
05-24-2016, 12:37 PM
We've talked about omnibenevolent before. As I recall, you denied the idea then proceeded to defend the concepts inherent in it. We've talked before about what heaven looks like, where you described what you think our bodies would be. Your only reference point was Jesus in his returned state, even while you admitted that he was a special case. The Bible doesn't say there's a trinity, and it took a few hundred years for people to piece together that particular belief, yet it's a necessary position for orthodoxy these days. The Bible says nothing about Immaculate Conception, yet millions of people believe that. The Bible says nothing at all about dinosaurs, yet people claim there must have been some on Noah's Ark.

The Bible doesn't say a lot of things that adherents nonetheless believe. That's kinda my point.The bible isn't an instruction manual or a law book.

But that is for another thread. This one is about your God.

did he bring the donuts?

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 12:43 PM
The bible isn't an instruction manual or a law book.

But that is for another thread. This one is about your God.

Agreed.



did he bring the donuts?

It brings them when needed. :teeth:

Sparko
05-24-2016, 12:57 PM
Agreed.




It brings them when needed. :teeth:It? Which bathroom does it use?

Carrikature
05-24-2016, 01:04 PM
It? Which bathroom does it use?

A supermassive blackhole.

It's the best kind. :yes:

Raphael
05-24-2016, 08:26 PM
A supermassive blackhole.

It's the best kind. :yes:

That sounds close to the Wizards in Terry Pratchett's discworld who were using a wormhole as a toilet....unaware the other end was in the attic.......

Carrikature
05-26-2016, 10:06 AM
That sounds close to the Wizards in Terry Pratchett's discworld who were using a wormhole as a toilet....unaware the other end was in the attic.......

I've only read one book by Terry Pratchett, but I'm sure he'd agree with any port in a storm...

Jedidiah
05-26-2016, 03:18 PM
I've only read one book by Terry Pratchett, . . . snip. . .

You lose.

Raphael
05-26-2016, 03:25 PM
I've only read one book by Terry Pratchett, but I'm sure he'd agree with any port in a storm...

until the ceiling collapsed with all the weight........

Christianbookworm
05-26-2016, 03:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2_x9np5w1k

:outtie: Couldn't resist.

Don't tell me that some atheists think we Christians are holding out for a hero.

Raphael
05-26-2016, 03:36 PM
until the ceiling collapsed with all the weight........

'One opened up in one of the cellars once, all by itself,' said the Dean. 'Just a round black hole. Anything you put in it just disappeared. So old Archchancellor Weatherwax had a privy built over it.'

'Very sensible idea,' said Ridcully, still looking thoughtful.

'We thought so too, until we found the other one that had opened in the attic. Turned out to be the other side of the same hole. I'm sure I don't need to draw you a picture.'

'I've never heard of these!' said Ponder Stibbons. The possibilities are amazing!'

'Everyone says that when they first hear about them,' said the Senior Wrangler. 'But when you've been a wizard as long as I have, my boy, you'll learn that as soon as you find anything that offers amazing possibilities for the improvement of the human condition it's best to put the lid back on and pretend it never happened.'

'But if you could get one to open above another you could drop something through the bottom hole and it'd come out of the top hole and fall through the bottom hole again... It'd reach meteoritic speed and the amount of power you could generate would be—'

That's pretty much what happened between the attic and the cellar,' said the Dean, taking a cold chicken leg. 'Thank goodness for air friction, that's all I'll say.'

Carrikature
05-26-2016, 03:53 PM
You lose.

I'll willingly compound that loss by adding that I didn't find the one book I read to be very good. :shrug:

Chrawnus
05-26-2016, 08:01 PM
I'll willingly compound that loss by adding that I didn't find the one book I read to be very good. :shrug:

Henceforth you shall be known as Stick-In-The-Mud.

Chrawnus
05-26-2016, 08:04 PM
:outtie: Couldn't resist.

Don't tell me that some atheists think we Christians are holding out for a hero.

I prefer the original by Bonnie Tyler. :yes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0

Carrikature
05-26-2016, 08:56 PM
Henceforth you shall be known as Stick-In-The-Mud.

Stick is someone else. I'm carrot, remember?

Chrawnus
05-26-2016, 10:31 PM
Stick is someone else.

Not any more. :rasberry:

firstfloor
05-27-2016, 05:50 AM
Apparently our God IS broken according to you guys. So I think Gerbil wants to see if you can come up with a better one.

He HAS to give out free donuts though. That is a non-negotiable point. Jelly filled.It can’t be done, just like the original.

Meh Gerbil
05-27-2016, 05:57 AM
It can’t be done, just like the original.
So you don't think it is possible to construct (as a mental exercise, not literally create) a god that is internally consistent?

firstfloor
05-27-2016, 06:18 AM
So you don't think it is possible to construct (as a mental exercise, not literally create) a god that is internally consistent?I think definitely not.
I hope you’re not going to ask a silly question now.

Meh Gerbil
05-27-2016, 06:34 AM
I think definitely not.
I hope you’re not going to ask a silly question now.
When I wrote the initial post I thought there were two likely outcomes:

1: Atheists would come to realize that any god concept, due to the scope and complexity, is fraught with inconsistencies and problems (1).
2: Atheists would come to the conclusion that a god is logically impossible.






NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Anytime the finite approaches the infinite there are going to be substantive problems.

Carrikature
05-27-2016, 08:42 AM
When I wrote the initial post I thought there were two likely outcomes:

1: Atheists would come to realize that any god concept, due to the scope and complexity, is fraught with inconsistencies and problems (1).
2: Atheists would come to the conclusion that a god is logically impossible.

NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Anytime the finite approaches the infinite there are going to be substantive problems.

I've never found the "greatest possible being" arguments to be coherent. Nothing says it has to be infinite. :shrug:

firstfloor
05-27-2016, 09:04 AM
When I wrote the initial post I thought there were two likely outcomes:

1: Atheists would come to realize that any god concept, due to the scope and complexity, is fraught with inconsistencies and problems (1).
2: Atheists would come to the conclusion that a god is logically impossible.

NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Anytime the finite approaches the infinite there are going to be substantive problems.And, regarding God’s nature, what philosophy does circular ballooning bring to the table?

Carrikature
05-27-2016, 01:20 PM
I think definitely not.

Er...why not?

firstfloor
05-27-2016, 02:41 PM
Er...why not?The God concept cannot be realised. The idea itself is protected by ‘faith’ which is usually considered to be, but is actually not, virtuous. So the lie is embedded in another lie but it is the fact that the faithful imagine themselves to be better off by being faithful that protects them from reform. The route out is honesty.

Carrikature
05-31-2016, 01:07 PM
The God concept cannot be realised. The idea itself is protected by ‘faith’ which is usually considered to be, but is actually not, virtuous. So the lie is embedded in another lie but it is the fact that the faithful imagine themselves to be better off by being faithful that protects them from reform. The route out is honesty.

I don't understand how this precludes a hypothetical that doesn't fall prey to this issue.

Sparko
05-31-2016, 01:12 PM
Man! These atheists sure are slow at building a God.

Here let me start.

If I could build a God, he would be all powerful, and know everything, except my deepest secrets, because I might be embarrassed. He would be cool and be my best friend and let me do anything I wanted. He would make sure that nobody was ever sick, or sad, or needed anything.

He would go fishing with me and let me catch the biggest fish. He would like everything I liked, and not like everything I don't like.

He would basically be just like me, but better!

Trout
06-01-2016, 06:03 AM
Mine would be more like a genie in a bottle. At my beckon call.

Sparko
06-01-2016, 06:22 AM
Mine would be more like a genie in a bottle. At my beckon call.hopefully your "beckon" god would teach you about grammar.

Trout
06-01-2016, 06:24 AM
hopefully your "beckon" god would teach you about grammar.

Taoist?? Log out of the Sparko account RIGHT NOW. Not cool, brah.

Sparko
06-01-2016, 06:29 AM
Taoist?? Log out of the Sparko account RIGHT NOW. Not cool, brah.I am not at your beck and call.

Christianbookworm
06-01-2016, 06:37 AM
Mine would be more like a genie in a bottle. At my beckon call.

A genie?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Op1TaXmCw

Chrawnus
06-01-2016, 06:47 AM
Mine would be more like a genie in a bottle. At my beckon call.

beckon...bacon?

Carrikature
06-01-2016, 08:52 AM
beckon...bacon?

Post by OBP in 3...2...1...

Sparko
06-01-2016, 08:54 AM
Beckon is probably one of Trout's roller derby girls. Or is that Rebeckon?

Chrawnus
06-01-2016, 08:58 AM
Post by OBP in 3...2...1...

:no:

In order to summon someone you need to call them a minimum of three times, like this:

I beckon...bacon! :candle:

I beckon...bacon! :candle:

I beckon...bacon! :candle:



ETA: Now we just need to wait... :yummy:

Jedidiah
06-01-2016, 08:59 AM
beckon...bacon?

And we have a winner.

Sparko
06-01-2016, 09:01 AM
Here she is now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb0OkARAYa8

Jedidiah
06-01-2016, 12:32 PM
Man! These atheists sure are slow at building a God.

Here let me start.

If I could build a God, he would be all powerful, and know everything, except my deepest secrets, because I might be embarrassed. He would be cool and be my best friend and let me do anything I wanted. He would make sure that nobody was ever sick, or sad, or needed anything.

He would go fishing with me and let me catch the biggest fish. He would like everything I liked, and not like everything I don't like.

He would basically be just like me, but better!This post is truly amazing in it's depth of perception. For most folks that is sort of the image they have of God. Good on you Sparky.

firstfloor
06-03-2016, 04:30 PM
I don't understand how this precludes a hypothetical that doesn't fall prey to this issue.We can imagine all sorts of nonsense or dream up any hypothesis. Ultimately, we know what is imaginary and what is not by experience. The judge, jury and executioner are always nature herself. Any hypothesis has to be coherent and in accordance with physical law as it is already understood even to stand a chance of being possible. What you cannot do legitimately is dream up an entirely new physics in which to locate your God. That’s just meaningless.

Chrawnus
06-03-2016, 09:02 PM
We can imagine all sorts of nonsense or dream up any hypothesis. Ultimately, we know what is imaginary and what is not by experience. The judge, jury and executioner are always nature herself. Any hypothesis has to be coherent and in accordance with physical law as it is already understood even to stand a chance of being possible. What you cannot do legitimately is dream up an entirely new physics in which to locate your God. That’s just meaningless.

God is transcendent, if He wants to exist He'll exist, and there's nothing your laws of physics and self-refuting verificationism can do about it. :shrug:

firstfloor
06-04-2016, 08:58 AM
God is transcendent, ... This is the sort of word that we use about comic book heroes. It lacks any reality. Not that there is anything wrong with the myth as long as you know it is a myth. I would argue that the God is more empowering when you know what it is.

Carrikature
06-04-2016, 03:06 PM
God is transcendent, if He wants to exist He'll exist, and there's nothing your laws of physics and self-refuting verificationism can do about it. :shrug:

This usage of transcendent effectively precludes any claim to knowledge about the object it's meant to describe.

JimL
06-04-2016, 03:21 PM
Atheists: Build Me A God (1)
What would a believable god look like to you?
What would a god with 'street cred' look like?

Would he be all sunshine and lollypops?
Would he allow free will?
Would he look like an old man, old woman, transgender?

I think coming up with a god that you skeptics will buy is tough work.
I want to be in the skeptics seat for once - sell me on your ideal.





NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: No, I'm not talking about the new Audi A4.

How about a god who makes himself known absolutely to every individual rather than requiring them to either believe or go to hell?

Carrikature
06-04-2016, 04:16 PM
How about a god who makes himself known absolutely to every individual rather than requiring them to either believe or go to hell?

We have to preserve free will, remember? :wink:

Meh Gerbil
06-04-2016, 04:32 PM
How about a god who makes himself known absolutely to every individual rather than requiring them to either believe or go to hell?
I've wondered about that.
Can you imagine any problems with that approach (let's assume it preserves free will)?

Chrawnus
06-04-2016, 06:12 PM
This usage of transcendent effectively precludes any claim to knowledge about the object it's meant to describe.

I don't think you can support your assertion with a logical argument, but you're welcome to try if you want.

JimL
06-05-2016, 03:10 AM
We have to preserve free will, remember? :wink:
Knowledge doesn't prevent free will. According to scripture A+E knew god on a personal level which didn't prevent them from exercising their free will.

JimL
06-05-2016, 03:21 AM
I've wondered about that.
Can you imagine any problems with that approach (let's assume it preserves free will)?
I can't imagine a one. If a god were known to exist then your request to build a god that we could believe in would be moot. Can you think of a good reason that god doesn't make himself known absolutely, rather than requiring us to believe? I can't.

JimL
06-05-2016, 03:48 AM
I don't think you can support your assertion with a logical argument, but you're welcome to try if you want.

He just did. If you could know of gods existence, then you would have no need or requirement to believe in gods existence. It is no different than a phycisist believing in the multi-verse, excepting that such belief is infered based on actual physical knowledge he has garnered from this world, but though he may believe that the multi-verse is that which transcends our own universe, he doesn't "know it". The same is true with respect to god, you can't know that which transcends human knowledge, which is why its called transcendent.

Sparko
06-05-2016, 08:09 AM
Well JimL, the last time God revealed himself physically to mankind, we killed him.

Meh Gerbil
06-05-2016, 08:10 AM
I can't imagine a one. If a god were known to exist then your request to build a god that we could believe in would be moot. Can you think of a good reason that god doesn't make himself known absolutely, rather than requiring us to believe? I can't.I cannot think of one.
I agree with you in that I don't find the freewill reasoning to be very convincing.

My best guess would be that if God were to show Himself it would make the situation worse.
Before I elaborate on that I wonder if you'd like to give it a shot - that is, imagine God appearing to all people as you've described.
What do you think would happen?

JimL
06-05-2016, 08:13 AM
Well JimL, the last time God revealed himself physically to mankind, we killed him.

Only because he planned it that way. :lol:

JimL
06-05-2016, 08:26 AM
I cannot think of one.
I agree with you in that I don't find the freewill reasoning to be very convincing.

My best guess would be that if God were to show Himself it would make the situation worse.
Before I elaborate on that I wonder if you'd like to give it a shot - that is, imagine God appearing to all people as you've described.
What do you think would happen?

Well that makes no sense to me, why would it be worse for you personally if you knew god existed? For one thing, people wouldn't be killing each other over their imaginary gods.

Sparko
06-05-2016, 08:35 AM
Only because he planned it that way. :lol:in a way. he knew what we would do, so he worked his plan into that. he didn't cause us to crucify him. so basically showing himself openly to mankind didn't seem to be the great thing you seem to think it would be. of course he only appeared as a human. maybe you are thinking of appearing as God himself?

my thought on that is that humans are paranoid creatures. if some omniscient all powerful being appeared one day claiming to be God, and telling us to follow him, we would be instantly suspicious, thinking he was trying to control us, was some evil alien, or the devil in disguise, etc. People would rebel against him out of suspicion and fear, it would disrupt all of society, cause wars, etc.

Meh Gerbil
06-05-2016, 11:27 AM
Well that makes no sense to me, why would it be worse for you personally if you knew god existed? For one thing, people wouldn't be killing each other over their imaginary gods.I don't think a god appearing would squelch the opposition.
I wonder if it wouldn't fuel it along with a great deal of violence.

If a god did appear how would he prove he's a god and not merely some advanced alien?

I think conspiracy theories would arise and a significant armed resistance would result.
I think it would be a big mess.

I don't pretend that theory is intellectually satisfying but based on my understanding of god I'd hazard the guess that not appearing is an act of mercy.

JimL
06-05-2016, 12:41 PM
I don't think a god appearing would squelch the opposition.
I wonder if it wouldn't fuel it along with a great deal of violence.

If a god did appear how would he prove he's a god and not merely some advanced alien?

I think conspiracy theories would arise and a significant armed resistance would result.
I think it would be a big mess.

I don't pretend that theory is intellectually satisfying but based on my understanding of god I'd hazard the guess that not appearing is an act of mercy.
You're assuming by this answer that god can't make it known that he is god and so we are still stuck with the need of believing rather than of knowing. He's god, i'm sure he could find a way. But anyways, back to your original question, in order to worship a god, said god would need be worthy of worship whether he is god or not, and whatever is responsible for this world of pain, suffering, and agonizing death, a world in which life has to feed on life in order to survive, is not worthy of worship in my opinion. Those things have nothing to do with free will and so that argument doesn't hold water.

Carrikature
06-05-2016, 06:10 PM
I don't think you can support your assertion with a logical argument, but you're welcome to try if you want.

It's true by definition. Otherwise, you have to claim we know what it means to exist immaterially outside of time, which would be absurd.

Chrawnus
06-05-2016, 06:21 PM
It's true by definition. Otherwise, you have to claim we know what it means to exist immaterially outside of time, which would be absurd.

I don't think you need to know what it means exactly to know what it means to "exist immaterially outside of time", to know that a transcendent God exists. We could know through revelation or the witness of the Holy Spirit (assuming for the sake of the argument that God really does exist and that it is the Christian God) that God exists, that he exists timelessly and immaterially, and we would not need to know what it means to be timeless and immaterial for it to be true knowledge.

Carrikature
06-05-2016, 07:27 PM
I don't think you need to know what it means exactly to know what it means to "exist immaterially outside of time", to know that a transcendent God exists. We could know through revelation or the witness of the Holy Spirit (assuming for the sake of the argument that God really does exist and that it is the Christian God) that God exists, that he exists timelessly and immaterially, and we would not need to know what it means to be timeless and immaterial for it to be true knowledge.

I think you're wrong on all counts. To ascribe revelation to anything, you have to know what it's capable of. Which means describing properties of an entity you claim doesn't exist in a form we can comprehend.

On top of that, knowledge requires belief. This puts you in the very same boat as claims about ability.

Chrawnus
06-05-2016, 07:55 PM
I think you're wrong on all counts. To ascribe revelation to anything, you have to know what it's capable of. Which means describing properties of an entity you claim doesn't exist in a form we can comprehend.

On top of that, knowledge requires belief. This puts you in the very same boat as claims about ability.

You would have to know what it's capable of, only in the most rudimentary sense. If God gave you knowledge about his existence through the Holy Spirit I think you would be justified in believing that it is true knowledge, even if you were not aware of how exactly God communicated that knowledge to you. But even so, simply by God revealing himself through the witness of the Holy Spirit you would indirectly gain the knowledge "God is capable of imparting knowledge about Himself to us", so the very act of revelation through the Holy Spirit would give us the kind of knowledge of capability which you claim we need (assuming I'm understanding your point of knowledge about ability correctly).

I'm still not sure how you connect us not being able to comprehend the the nature of God's existence to us not having any knowledge about His capabilities. It doesn't seem to me that there is any logical connection between those statements.

And I'm completely lost on what your point about knowledge requiring belief is supposed to be. :huh:

Carrikature
06-05-2016, 08:26 PM
You would have to know what it's capable of, only in the most rudimentary sense. If God gave you knowledge about his existence through the Holy Spirit I think you would be justified in believing that it is true knowledge, even if you were not aware of how exactly God communicated that knowledge to you. But even so, simply by God revealing himself through the witness of the Holy Spirit you would indirectly gain the knowledge "God is capable of imparting knowledge about Himself to us", so the very act of revelation through the Holy Spirit would give us the kind of knowledge of capability which you claim we need (assuming I'm understanding your point of knowledge about ability correctly).

To say that the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge implicitly entails a claim that the Holy Spirit has the ability to give you knowledge. The same is true about claiming that God is revealed through the witness of the Holy Spirit. You can believe these things, but they're neither justified nor anything close to knowledge.



I'm still not sure how you connect us not being able to comprehend the the nature of God's existence to us not having any knowledge about His capabilities. It doesn't seem to me that there is any logical connection between those statements.

I'm thinking of something. Will you get wet when you touch it? How do you know?



And I'm completely lost on what your point about knowledge requiring belief is supposed to be. :huh:

Knowledge is generally defined as justified true belief. That definition has its flaws (as Gettier made plain), but it's so far the best we have.

Chrawnus
06-05-2016, 08:51 PM
To say that the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge implicitly entails a claim that the Holy Spirit has the ability to give you knowledge. The same is true about claiming that God is revealed through the witness of the Holy Spirit. You can believe these things, but they're neither justified nor anything close to knowledge.

Are you saying that the belief that the Holy Spirit is able to impart knowledge is not justified, or are you saying that we would not be justified in believing the information which the Holy Spirit would impart to us (assuming for the sake of the argument that he exists)? Because I do believe you would be correct if you meant to state the former, with the caveat that if the Holy Spirit did exist, and if He decided to witness to someone regarding the existence of God, that witness would be an implicit justification of itself. So a person who hasn't received the witness of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be required to believe someone if they told him that the Holy Spirit had witnessed about God's existence to them, but the person telling him about the Holy Spirit witnessing to him would be entirely justified in believing that it was the Holy Spirit witnessing to him, if it really was the Holy Spirit, and not just his imagination, or an evil spirit.



I'm thinking of something. Will you get wet when you touch it? How do you know?

Presumably by touching it. Please carry on with your point.





Knowledge is generally defined as justified true belief. That definition has its flaws (as Gettier made plain), but it's so far the best we have.

I'm aware. What I'm not sure of is why bring it up to the forefront. I was operating under the assumption that we were both aware of and working under this definition of knowledge already, so you bringing it up just seemed kind of pointless. :shrug:

Carrikature
06-05-2016, 09:35 PM
Are you saying that the belief that the Holy Spirit is able to impart knowledge is not justified, or are you saying that we would not be justified in believing the information which the Holy Spirit would impart to us (assuming for the sake of the argument that he exists)? Because I do believe you would be correct if you meant to state the former, with the caveat that if the Holy Spirit did exist, and if He decided to witness to someone regarding the existence of God, that witness would be an implicit justification of itself. So a person who hasn't received the witness of the Holy Spirit wouldn't be required to believe someone if they told him that the Holy Spirit had witnessed about God's existence to them, but the person telling him about the Holy Spirit witnessing to him would be entirely justified in believing that it was the Holy Spirit witnessing to him, if it really was the Holy Spirit, and not just his imagination, or an evil spirit.

You missed a really big 'if' here. IF the holy spirit is capable of witnessing to you. Which you can't know.

The parts I've underlined are actually examples of requisite beliefs that are themselves unjustified. That's even more ammunition against the claim of knowledge.



Presumably by touching it. Please carry on with your point.

I'm so glad you answered this way. 'Presumably' isn't knowledge. I asked how you know. The answer is: you don't. You don't know what I'm thinking about, so you don't know what will happen when you attempt to interact with whatever it is. You don't know capabilities without knowing properties. Which is exactly my point.



I'm aware. What I'm not sure of is why bring it up to the forefront. I was operating under the assumption that we were both aware of and working under this definition of knowledge already, so you bringing it up just seemed kind of pointless. :shrug:

I bring it to the forefront because you've been making knowledge claims that don't even meet these basic criteria. More than that even, you've been claiming that certain beliefs are justified by other beliefs, which definitely isn't knowledge.

Chrawnus
06-05-2016, 10:43 PM
You missed a really big 'if' here. IF the holy spirit is capable of witnessing to you. Which you can't know.

Well that's the thing. You (as in you personally) do not have the required information in order to make this assessment. You simply do not have the required knowledge to make the judgement: "Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit has witnessed to them is not justified in their belief that it really is the Holy Spirit who witnessed to them".

At most you would be justified in saying: "This person might, or might not be justified in his belief that it is the Holy Spirit who witnesses to him, but for me personally there is no reason to accept his testimony about the witness of the Holy Spirit".




The parts I've underlined are actually examples of requisite beliefs that are themselves unjustified. That's even more ammunition against the claim of knowledge.

I don't think it is. For the person who has the authentic witness of the Holy Spirit the witness would be self-justificating. The fact that people can deceive themselves into thinking they have this witness when they don't, or mistake a completely unrelated experience as the witness of the Holy Spirit, does nothing to undermine the authentic witness for those who have it. Neither does their unability to justify the authenticity of this witness to those who do not have the witness in any way undermine their own justification in believing in it's authenticity.





I'm so glad you answered this way. 'Presumably' isn't knowledge. I asked how you know. The answer is: you don't. You don't know what I'm thinking about, so you don't know what will happen when you attempt to interact with whatever it is. You don't know capabilities without knowing properties. Which is exactly my point.

When I wrote presumably I meant as in "Presumably you want me to answer: by touching it", because the question was "Will you get wet by touching it?". But setting that irrelevancy aside, I do not see how what you say follows. If we assume for a moment that what you're thinking of is water, I could instantly know that I would get wet by touching it, simply by touching it and I would not need to see, hear or otherwise be cognizant of any other property of this thing, other than what I could gain simply by touching it. So if whatever you're thinking of is something that I can touch I would know if I get wet by touching it by simply touching it, and I would not need to know anything of it's properties in order for me to be justified in my belief that "if I touch this thing I will/will not become wet". (Whew, that's a lot of "touching", I hope you can follow all of that without becoming confused :lol:)

But in the case of the witness of the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't be the one doing the interaction. It would be the Holy Spirit interacting with us to give us the knowledge about God's existence, not the other way around.





I bring it to the forefront because you've been making knowledge claims that don't even meet these basic criteria. More than that even, you've been claiming that certain beliefs are justified by other beliefs, which definitely isn't knowledge.

What I've been trying to claim is not that a certain belief is justified by some other belief. Rather, I've been trying to claim that a certain belief (belief in God's existence) can be justified by a certain experience (the authentic witness of the Holy Spirit) and that this experience is self-justificating in the sense that someone who has this experience does not need any outside reason to believe that this experience is authentic, simply by having the experience he will know that it is authentic. Which means that if he was not sure that the experience was authentic, he would not be justified in believing that it was authentic, unless he had strong enough reasons outside of the experience to validate it.

Is my experience of sitting in front of my computer and writing a reply to your post in and of itself enough justification for me to know that I'm sitting in front of my computer and writing a reply to your post, or do I need further justification before I can claim that I know this, and simply not believe that's what I'm doing?

And just to clarify, and nip further misunderstanding in the bud: When I say 'transcendent', I do not mean it in the sense that we can know absolutely nothing about God's attributes. My initial post was to firstfloor's assertion that "Any hypothesis has to be coherent and in accordance with physical law as it is already understood even to stand a chance of being possible." I was using the word transcendent in my reply to him to mean "Not bound by, or influenced by physical law", and not in the sense of "existing in a form that we can't comprehend". I do believe that left to our own devices we would not comprehend any (or atleast precious few, I'm not entirely certain exactly where I stand on this) of God's attributes, so in that sense I believe that the statement "God exists in a form we cannot comprehend (through our own reasoning)" is true, but I also believe that there are certain aspects of God's attributes (such as His omniattributes, the fact that God is personal, and that He is triune), that we can grasp (though certainly not exhaustively), if God chooses to reveal these things to us. God is able to communicate knowledge about Himself to us that we are unable to reach with our own reasoning.

Chrawnus
06-05-2016, 10:53 PM
I don't think a god appearing would squelch the opposition.
I wonder if it wouldn't fuel it along with a great deal of violence.

If a god did appear how would he prove he's a god and not merely some advanced alien?

I think conspiracy theories would arise and a significant armed resistance would result.
I think it would be a big mess.

I don't pretend that theory is intellectually satisfying but based on my understanding of god I'd hazard the guess that not appearing is an act of mercy.

I think you're on to something here. My understanding is that when God does appear to all of mankind it will be in the context of the Last Judgement, which means that for anyone who has not yet put his faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work it will be too late to do so. And 2 Peter 3 seem to support this notion, especially verse 9.

ETA: Also, my amen to your post extends only to your statement that God not appearing is an act of mercy, not the other things you said. If God appeared to all of mankind I don't think we would be able to do anything else other than either fall to our knees and praise Him for his lovingkindness, or tremble because of his power and justice. Any thought of opposition and violence would probably be wiped out in an instant in the face of God's majesty and power.

Meh Gerbil
06-06-2016, 08:19 AM
I think you're on to something here. My understanding is that when God does appear to all of mankind it will be in the context of the Last Judgement, which means that for anyone who has not yet put his faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning work it will be too late to do so. And 2 Peter 3 seem to support this notion, especially verse 9.

ETA: Also, my amen to your post extends only to your statement that God not appearing is an act of mercy, not the other things you said. If God appeared to all of mankind I don't think we would be able to do anything else other than either fall to our knees and praise Him for his lovingkindness, or tremble because of his power and justice. Any thought of opposition and violence would probably be wiped out in an instant in the face of God's majesty and power.
The idea was that a god would appear and man's freewill would remain intact.
As for the final judgement I think that whole affair is going to be as disappointing to the fundamentalists of our day as Jesus was to the fundamentalists of his day.

Sparko
06-06-2016, 08:29 AM
You're assuming by this answer that god can't make it known that he is god and so we are still stuck with the need of believing rather than of knowing. He's god, i'm sure he could find a way. But anyways, back to your original question, in order to worship a god, said god would need be worthy of worship whether he is god or not, and whatever is responsible for this world of pain, suffering, and agonizing death, a world in which life has to feed on life in order to survive, is not worthy of worship in my opinion. Those things have nothing to do with free will and so that argument doesn't hold water.But if he is the God of the bible, then he is not responsible for all of that, we are. He made things perfect, we screwed it up.

But basically you are saying even if God did show himself to you, you would still not worship him. Maybe that is why he has never bothered to do so, being omniscient and all.

Jedidiah
06-06-2016, 08:57 AM
Bottom line - atheists always see a god as a small supernatural thing. They never seem to see the possibility that their imagination is far too small.

Meh Gerbil
06-06-2016, 09:11 AM
Bottom line - atheists always see a god as a small supernatural thing. They never seem to see the possibility that their imagination is far too small.
Odd, I feel the exact same way about fundamentalists who claim to comprehend every attribute of God and can flawlessly reconcile every imaginable incongruity of the eternal.

Jedidiah
06-06-2016, 09:27 AM
Odd, I feel the exact same way about fundamentalists who claim to comprehend every attribute of God and can flawlessly reconcile every imaginable incongruity of the eternal.

I had considered adding that the same is true of many Christians, not only your neo fundamentalists. But you have rectified that omission.

firstfloor
06-06-2016, 02:41 PM
Bottom line - atheists always see a god as a small supernatural thing. They never seem to see the possibility that their imagination is far too small.God’s size is really not the issue. But being omnipresent probably means that He has great difficulty touching His toes while at the same time His omnipotence means that it’s easy for Him. Basically, He’s got too many adjectives.

I think Matt Dillahunty has a good definition of atheist: he who finds, in the legal sense, God not guilty of exiting. Christians are so used to having a God that they just don’t understand that it’s quite easy to get along without one. The “bottom line” is your confusion on that point.

I claim that what is available to you through belief in Jesus Christ is available to anyone even without such belief.

Meh Gerbil
06-06-2016, 03:50 PM
I claim that what is available to you through belief in Jesus Christ is available to anyone even without such belief.
I've found what Christ offers to be 180 degrees out of phase with every other offer I've received.
If you have a less expensive source for the same goods please share that now.

JimL
06-06-2016, 05:08 PM
But if he is the God of the bible, then he is not responsible for all of that, we are. He made things perfect, we screwed it up.
Is it possible for god to make a perfect world in which free will is included, or is that beyond his omnipotent omniscience?

But basically you are saying even if God did show himself to you, you would still not worship him. Maybe that is why he has never bothered to do so, being omniscient and all.
No, I said that in order for me to worship/love a god, the god would need be worthy of worship. Would you worship/love a god that you believed to be evil, just because he is god?

Jedidiah
06-06-2016, 05:41 PM
No, I said that in order for me to worship/love a god, the god would need be worthy of worship. Would you worship/love a god that you believed to be evil, just because he is god?

Projection.

Sparko
06-07-2016, 06:17 AM
Is it possible for god to make a perfect world in which free will is included, or is that beyond his omnipotent omniscience? to repeat: He did create such a world. We screwed it up.


No, I said that in order for me to worship/love a god, the god would need be worthy of worship. Would you worship/love a god that you believed to be evil, just because he is god?
You said, "whatever is responsible for this world of pain, suffering, and agonizing death, a world in which life has to feed on life in order to survive, is not worthy of worship in my opinion." - so unless you agree that WE are responsible for this world of suffering as I said earlier, you must think God is responsible and not worth worshiping.

So do you believe God is responsible for the suffering and pain, or that we are?

Carrikature
06-07-2016, 09:13 AM
Well that's the thing. You (as in you personally) do not have the required information in order to make this assessment. You simply do not have the required knowledge to make the judgement: "Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit has witnessed to them is not justified in their belief that it really is the Holy Spirit who witnessed to them".

At most you would be justified in saying: "This person might, or might not be justified in his belief that it is the Holy Spirit who witnesses to him, but for me personally there is no reason to accept his testimony about the witness of the Holy Spirit".

Justified beliefs are not knowledge. I wouldn't claim that you can't have justified belief, but I am definitely claiming you don't have knowledge that this witness happened as you believe it did.



I don't think it is. For the person who has the authentic witness of the Holy Spirit the witness would be self-justificating. The fact that people can deceive themselves into thinking they have this witness when they don't, or mistake a completely unrelated experience as the witness of the Holy Spirit, does nothing to undermine the authentic witness for those who have it. Neither does their unability to justify the authenticity of this witness to those who do not have the witness in any way undermine their own justification in believing in it's authenticity.

This is pretty much 100% wrong. An experience cannot provide justification for the content of the experience. At best you would have justification for your belief that the experience occurred.



When I wrote presumably I meant as in "Presumably you want me to answer: by touching it", because the question was "Will you get wet by touching it?". But setting that irrelevancy aside, I do not see how what you say follows. If we assume for a moment that what you're thinking of is water, I could instantly know that I would get wet by touching it, simply by touching it and I would not need to see, hear or otherwise be cognizant of any other property of this thing, other than what I could gain simply by touching it. So if whatever you're thinking of is something that I can touch I would know if I get wet by touching it by simply touching it, and I would not need to know anything of it's properties in order for me to be justified in my belief that "if I touch this thing I will/will not become wet". (Whew, that's a lot of "touching", I hope you can follow all of that without becoming confused :lol:)

But in the case of the witness of the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't be the one doing the interaction. It would be the Holy Spirit interacting with us to give us the knowledge about God's existence, not the other way around.

The entire point here is that you have been making claims about an entity whose properties you don't (and, by definition, can't) have knowledge of. This is the essence of my example. Until you know what I'm thinking about, you cannot make claims about what will happen should interaction occur. You do not have knowledge of God or the Holy Spirit or anything else enough to say that such an entity is even capable of interaction in the first place, yet you claim to know that they can and have done so.



What I've been trying to claim is not that a certain belief is justified by some other belief. Rather, I've been trying to claim that a certain belief (belief in God's existence) can be justified by a certain experience (the authentic witness of the Holy Spirit) and that this experience is self-justificating in the sense that someone who has this experience does not need any outside reason to believe that this experience is authentic, simply by having the experience he will know that it is authentic. Which means that if he was not sure that the experience was authentic, he would not be justified in believing that it was authentic, unless he had strong enough reasons outside of the experience to validate it.

Is my experience of sitting in front of my computer and writing a reply to your post in and of itself enough justification for me to know that I'm sitting in front of my computer and writing a reply to your post, or do I need further justification before I can claim that I know this, and simply not believe that's what I'm doing?

Reliabilism sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. That's the inherent problem with trying to convert belief into knowledge like you have tried to do in this thread. You can have justified beliefs all you like, but that does not make such beliefs 'knowledge'.



And just to clarify, and nip further misunderstanding in the bud: When I say 'transcendent', I do not mean it in the sense that we can know absolutely nothing about God's attributes. My initial post was to firstfloor's assertion that "Any hypothesis has to be coherent and in accordance with physical law as it is already understood even to stand a chance of being possible." I was using the word transcendent in my reply to him to mean "Not bound by, or influenced by physical law", and not in the sense of "existing in a form that we can't comprehend". I do believe that left to our own devices we would not comprehend any (or atleast precious few, I'm not entirely certain exactly where I stand on this) of God's attributes, so in that sense I believe that the statement "God exists in a form we cannot comprehend (through our own reasoning)" is true, but I also believe that there are certain aspects of God's attributes (such as His omniattributes, the fact that God is personal, and that He is triune), that we can grasp (though certainly not exhaustively), if God chooses to reveal these things to us. God is able to communicate knowledge about Himself to us that we are unable to reach with our own reasoning.

I'm aware that you did not mean transcendence in this sense, but that's the particular place you've gone wrong. By describing God as "not bound by, or influenced by physical law", you've necessarily moved God into a realm which we cannot comprehend. By doing that, you've also necessarily made it so that we can know nothing about his attributes. We can have beliefs, even strongly justified ones, but we cannot possess knowledge. Even the claim that God is able to communicate knowledge is itself a belief.

Chrawnus
06-07-2016, 09:52 AM
Justified beliefs are not knowledge. I wouldn't claim that you can't have justified belief, but I am definitely claiming you don't have knowledge that this witness happened as you believe it did.

You don't have knowledge that it did, but the one who experienced the witness certainly does, if the witness was authentic.




This is pretty much 100% wrong. An experience cannot provide justification for the content of the experience. At best you would have justification for your belief that the experience occurred.

I think you're wrong here. If an experience cannot be shown to be illusory, or otherwise faulty I think the one having the experience is justified in believing in the content of the experience, and not just the fact that the experience occurred. Other people might not be obligated to believe that his experience was genuine, but if they want to claim that he is not justified in believing that the experience justifies the content of the experience they are the ones who bear the burden of disproving the genuinity of it.





The entire point here is that you have been making claims about an entity whose properties you don't (and, by definition, can't) have knowledge of. This is the essence of my example. Until you know what I'm thinking about, you cannot make claims about what will happen should interaction occur. You do not have knowledge of God or the Holy Spirit or anything else enough to say that such an entity is even capable of interaction in the first place, yet you claim to know that they can and have done so.

And I can turn this back around to you and say you do not have enough knowledge about my knowledge and mind to say that I don't have enough knowledge of God or the Holy Spirit to know that such an entity is capable of interacting with us. You do not have enough justification to believe what you've asserted above, and you couldn't even in theory have that knowledge, unless you had direct access to my mind. :shrug:



Reliabilism sounds nice in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. That's the inherent problem with trying to convert belief into knowledge like you have tried to do in this thread. You can have justified beliefs all you like, but that does not make such beliefs 'knowledge'.

If we're talking about 100% certainty perhaps. :shrug:



I'm aware that you did not mean transcendence in this sense, but that's the particular place you've gone wrong. By describing God as "not bound by, or influenced by physical law", you've necessarily moved God into a realm which we cannot comprehend. By doing that, you've also necessarily made it so that we can know nothing about his attributes. We can have beliefs, even strongly justified ones, but we cannot possess knowledge. Even the claim that God is able to communicate knowledge is itself a belief.

You're claiming that if God is not bound by, or influenced by physical law it follows necessarily that we can know nothing about his attributes. This is an extremely strong assertion that you've not come even close to justifying yet. Unless such a justification is forthcoming (or unless you can point me to where in the discussion you believe yourself to have made that justification) I am in no way obligated to accept this statement.

Chrawnus
06-07-2016, 09:54 AM
As a side note, it's good to be back to discussing with you again. I know I have a tendency to leave our arguments abruptly, but I always enjoy discussing things with you, even if we disagree on things vehemently. :yes:

Carrikature
06-07-2016, 01:57 PM
You don't have knowledge that it did, but the one who experienced the witness certainly does, if the witness was authentic.

You provided reason to doubt the 'true' aspect required for knowledge. The one who experienced the witness doesn't have the answers to what really happened any more than I do, no matter how strong their belief in 'true'.



I think you're wrong here. If an experience cannot be shown to be illusory, or otherwise faulty I think the one having the experience is justified in believing in the content of the experience, and not just the fact that the experience occurred. Other people might not be obligated to believe that his experience was genuine, but if they want to claim that he is not justified in believing that the experience justifies the content of the experience they are the ones who bear the burden of disproving the genuinity of it.

I think you're misunderstanding where I'm coming from. I'm not challenging 'justified'. I'm challenging 'true'. Lots of beliefs are justified. Lots of arguments are valid. That doesn't mean any of them are true/sound. Establishing true/sound is a much higher hurdle.



And I can turn this back around to you and say you do not have enough knowledge about my knowledge and mind to say that I don't have enough knowledge of God or the Holy Spirit to know that such an entity is capable of interacting with us. You do not have enough justification to believe what you've asserted above, and you couldn't even in theory have that knowledge, unless you had direct access to my mind. :shrug:

How would you go about establishing an entity's ability? You have to establish that to claim 'true'. Otherwise, you just have belief. Which is fine, but it's not knowledge.

I don't have to know what's in your mind, though. I just have to know what's possible. Like whether or not we can verify claims of ability for an entity that exists in a realm outside of our own.



[If we're talking about 100% certainty perhaps. :shrug:

I generally think knowledge requires 100% certainty. Even if we set the bar much lower, we still have to eliminate other alternatives. I don't think we can do that in this case.



You're claiming that if God is not bound by, or influenced by physical law it follows necessarily that we can know nothing about his attributes. This is an extremely strong assertion that you've not come even close to justifying yet. Unless such a justification is forthcoming (or unless you can point me to where in the discussion you believe yourself to have made that justification) I am in no way obligated to accept this statement.

It's not that hard to support. We need a method to establish 'true'. We have no way to do that. Hence, we can't have knowledge. We can have reasonably strong, justified beliefs, but knowledge requires more than that.

To say that the Holy Spirit provided witness for such ability and that's how you know it's possible presupposes it's possible for you to receive such witness in the first place. You could say that the Holy Spirit's ability to provide such a witness is a properly basic belief, which I would grant. It still wouldn't count as knowledge, though.

Carrikature
06-07-2016, 01:57 PM
As a side note, it's good to be back to discussing with you again. I know I have a tendency to leave our arguments abruptly, but I always enjoy discussing things with you, even if we disagree on things vehemently. :yes:

Same here! It's not as if I've never left an argument abruptly, either. :smile:

JimL
06-07-2016, 05:30 PM
to repeat: He did create such a world. We screwed it up.
I don't think so. The point of my question though was; is the creation of a perfect, unscrewupable world even possible for an omnipotent omniscient god? I think it would have to be. But besides that, the god of the bible who you believe created the world prior to creating man, did not make a perfect world for him, there are natural catastrophies that maim and kill millions of people all the time that have nothing to do with the free willed actions, or sins, of those people.

You said, "whatever is responsible for this world of pain, suffering, and agonizing death, a world in which life has to feed on life in order to survive, is not worthy of worship in my opinion." - so unless you agree that WE are responsible for this world of suffering as I said earlier, you must think God is responsible and not worth worshiping.
No, I do not think a god is responsible, I certainly don't believe the biblical god is responsible, but if he were, he would not be worthy of worship. Btw, I don't agree that we are responsible for the conditions of the world that we live in. We are certainly responsible for much of the suffering in the world, but we are not responsible for the suffering and death inherent in life itself, nor of the suffering and death due to natural disasters. I don't believe that either a god or human beings are responsible for hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, floods etc. etc. that maim and kill thousands of people every year.

So do you believe God is responsible for the suffering and pain, or that we are?
As above I don't believe either to be the case. There is a third option. Neither is resposible, thats life.

fm93
06-07-2016, 05:31 PM
Same here! It's not as if I've never left an argument abruptly, either. :smile:
I for one have NEVER left an argument abrup