A message to Theists

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

I am certainly not saying it did not happen only that there are important practical questions here ....

Yes, we could ask the questions, but that would take us into different territory. I'm just sticking here with your challenge to supply something that we might deduce was from God. I think the story is a candidate, and the God deduction is at least as reasonable as any other.

That aside, you haven't shown why you are sure (perhaps not "know") that it was Bible-God and not Quetzlcoatl who did the magic deed

I never said I was sure who the God was, and you didn't specify that. Let's just call the being who hypothetically did this "The supernatural being who raised Joe from apparent death". That's a good enough start, don't you think?

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

I am only a confirmed atheist as long as the critical element is true, that there is no reason to believe in god(s). When valid (that is verifiable and objective) evidence comes along, I will follow it just as I do for all other information I take (provisionally) to be true. It is for this reason that I have no faith, no belief with insufficient (in this case, nonexistent) evidence.

So I admit the possibility of God and unicorns and Quetzlcoatl and all the other non-evidentiary notions that humanity has dreamed up.

This is very admirable Sternwallow, and I mean that. But I bet there are indeed things that you believe without sufficient "valid (that is verifiable and objective) evidence". Do you want to take the challenge?

[erich von stalhein]

zdave wrote

My thread got hijacked haha. As you were guys, is a good read. I do just want to point out that Erich, you were asked to present the (in your opinion) strongest arguments for God so we can destroy them (however facetious that sounds).

I asked you to pick your own argument and show me how it is destroyed. Do you want me to pick?

OK, perhaps you might destroy the argument from the historical evidence for Jesus. But if you're not into history, try the Cosmological argument or the Design argument, I'm not fussy.

Also, you asked for reading material regarding arguments and responses... please check out http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...believe_in_god and locate your strongest argument from this list (it's probably there).

I don't have a strongest argument, I think that is a bit silly (not silly of you to ask, but silly if I had one). I think the only sensible thing is to weigh all the evidence, all the arguments. That has a cumulative effect that is persuasive to me. So I'll stick with your offer to destroy the Jesus argument. You may wish to start another thread.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

I think a person who interprets the Bible should not call himself a Christian.

Well that's an assumption on your part which probably makes further discussion of that topic impossible, for I don't share that assumption, I think it is amazingly proscriptive and unhistorical. But you and I have managed to get this far and remain friendly, so let's not allow this to disturb things.

So let's not call me a christian then, call me something else, and there'll be no problems.

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

Yes, we could ask the questions, but that would take us into different territory. I'm just sticking here with your challenge to supply something that we might deduce was from God. I think the story is a candidate, and the God deduction is at least as reasonable as any other.


I never said I was sure who the God was, and you didn't specify that. Let's just call the being who hypothetically did this "The supernatural being who raised Joe from apparent death". That's a good enough start, don't you think?

Not really, for two reasons. I do not think we make any appreciable progress if God or the Tri-omni Invisible Unicorns or unusual natural processes have equal likelihood. In that set of possibilities, nature is the most realistic and it survives Occham's razor.

Your proposal begs the question "why suppose a being of any description is involved?" There are some natural instances of just such material as the singularity coming into existence, without intelligence, intentionality or design, which operate at the same subatomic scale as the singularity. I therefore nominate one of these patternless events for the creation of the universe at a very high probability.

There is an additional consideration in the creation of the universe: no power, in the natural sense, was needed to bring the universe into existence because, immediately following the BB instant and for all subsequent time, the universe has contained exactly zero mass/energy; it is geometrically flat. It is supremely easy to get nothing from nothing and doesn't require a god's power at all.

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

This is very admirable Sternwallow, and I mean that. But I bet there are indeed things that you believe without sufficient "valid (that is verifiable and objective) evidence". Do you want to take the challenge?

I have been challenged on this point before with the contention that I trust or have faith in or believe that when I sit down, my chair will support me and not crumple, hurling me to the floor. My response is that, to the contrary, I am quite sure that, on an exceedingly rare occasion, one that I pay well to be very rare indeed, the chair will dump me on the floor. That event has happened to me once before and I accept the risk in order to function in the real world. I do not trust my chair to hold me, I expect it to fail but with a measured small probability.

Given that background, you are welcome to bring on your challenge.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Given that background, you are welcome to bring on your challenge.

I wasn't thinking of chairs and such. But I will ask you a couple of questions ....

Which of these things do you believe in (there may be none) and how would you provide "valid (that is verifiable and objective) evidence" for them (I won't pick too many to start with):

1. that our sense perception of the external world is valid - i.e. we aren't brains in vats
2. that our brains can reason validly
3. that other minds are real
4. that some things are really right and wrong
5. that it is at all times wrong to believe something without evidence

PS I just realised I have missed replying to a couple of your posts. I think I won't go back, or the discussion gets too long and involved. If there's anything there you want to raise again, please do.

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

I asked you to pick your own argument and show me how it is destroyed. Do you want me to pick?

You said that you had some number of arguments that you felt strongly supported your views. If you are no more specific than that, we are likely to demolish an argument that you do not actually hold, likely even one that you had never heard of, the argument from divine malevolence, for example.

OK, perhaps you might destroy the argument from the historical evidence for Jesus. But if you're not into history, try the Cosmological argument or the Design argument, I'm not fussy.

Combining those last two, if a supernatural creative action were shown to be as highly likely as a natural one, the argument from design fails because that supernatural creative process has not been logically connected to anything (a currently existing god) active since the BB. Further, the early universe went through phases in which no design could have survived.

In short, once you have a Creator (not that you do), you will have all of your work still ahead of you to substantiate the Bible-god. You need the Bible-god or equivalent to claim design other than products of human intellect, in the current universe.

I don't have a strongest argument, I think that is a bit silly (not silly of you to ask, but silly if I had one). I think the only sensible thing is to weigh all the evidence, all the arguments. That has a cumulative effect that is persuasive to me. So I'll stick with your offer to destroy the Jesus argument. You may wish to start another thread.

I see no reason to think that all arguments have equal weight; there must, it would seem, be some few arguments that are stronger than most of the others. Why waste effort destroying arguments that are weaker than others if those others have been destroyed?

That is moot now that you have mentioned a few arguments that many would agree are among the strongest.

I will await another thread to state my more complete views on the historicity of Jesus except to note the following.

In first-century Palestine, Jesus was a very popular name, as was Mary (almost 25% of all women by counting the extra-Biblical records). Also at that time there were dozens of miracle workers each claiming to be the messiah and especially ordained by God to be His proxy and instruct humanity on God's wishes and how to correctly grovel before Him. There is adequate extra-Biblical evidence that a guy named Jesus might have briefly walked among us. Nothing that supports the historical Jesus, in any way, supports His performance of miracles or his birth from a virgin (a well-known translation error) via Holy Spirit or that He was the son of any higher being than some horny Roman soldier.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Not really, for two reasons. I do not think we make any appreciable progress if God or the Tri-omni Invisible Unicorns or unusual natural processes have equal likelihood. In that set of possibilities, nature is the most realistic and it survives Occham's razor.

You are getting hung up on names, which are only labels. If (to use the example I gave) I find it easier to believe that a prayer to a supreme being of indeterminate name is a more reasonable explanation of an amazing return from apparent death than that it happened naturally, it doesn't matter about the name, I have concluded that a powerful supreme being that hears what people say has done this. It doesn't matter what you call it, the being is the same one. If you attribute the act to a being whose character is already defined, then you can only do that if that being's character includes the ability and willingness to do the action.

I'm not aware of any definitions of "Tri-omni Invisible Unicorns" that would enable such beings to answer that prayer. Are you? If not, then the argument is a furphy.

Your proposal begs the question "why suppose a being of any description is involved?"

Because in this case an action that proved impossible to do by medical science alone became possible after the supreme being was asked to do the miracle. You may not believe it, but it is an obvious conclusion to at least consider.

There are some natural instances of just such material as the singularity coming into existence, without intelligence, intentionality or design, which operate at the same subatomic scale as the singularity.

But out of nothing??

There is an additional consideration in the creation of the universe: no power, in the natural sense, was needed to bring the universe into existence because, immediately following the BB instant and for all subsequent time, the universe has contained exactly zero mass/energy; it is geometrically flat. It is supremely easy to get nothing from nothing and doesn't require a god's power at all.

I'm sorry Sternwallow, but as far as my understanding goes, this is dodgy logic and dodgy science.

(1) Logic - why talk about what happened immediately after the BB when we are looking for a cause of the BB itself? What happens after is irrelevant.

(2) Science - where does science say that "universe has contained exactly zero mass/energy"? (and that this means that is is geometrically flat?)

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

Well that's an assumption on your part which probably makes further discussion of that topic impossible, for I don't share that assumption, I think it is amazingly proscriptive and unhistorical. But you and I have managed to get this far and remain friendly, so let's not allow this to disturb things.

So let's not call me a christian then, call me something else, and there'll be no problems.

IF we do not call you a Christian then I will have no expectations of what you believe and I will have to rely on your explicit statements of your beliefs. For example, if I can't fairly presume that you follow the tenets set out in the Bible, I must explicitly ask, do you believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection after being buried in the tomb for three days and nights (as some claim was prophesied in the OT)? Do you believe that the God of the universe would stoop to such transparently low magic tricks as multiplying loaves and fishes to wow the yokels? Do you believe that Jesus, the paragon of peace and love and non-violence, could become enraged and go on a berserk rampage, causing much damage to private property and legitimate commerce?

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

Well that's an assumption on your part which probably makes further discussion of that topic impossible, for I don't share that assumption, I think it is amazingly proscriptive and unhistorical. But you and I have managed to get this far and remain friendly, so let's not allow this to disturb things.

So let's not call me a christian then, call me something else, and there'll be no problems.

Goody. Let's call you an aThorist or an aPoseidonist.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

IF we do not call you a Christian then I will have no expectations of what you believe and I will have to rely on your explicit statements of your beliefs.

Hello again, SW, are you enjoying the discussion? I hope so, for I am. This represents a problem does it not? You don't want me to go without a name, but the name I would ordinarily go under you want to deny to me. I think relying on my explicit statements of beliefs may be the best policy. And you seem to be good at asking questions, so let's go thru another round ....

do you believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection after being buried in the tomb

Yes

for three days and nights (as some claim was prophesied in the OT)?

Not sure about exact days and nights.

Do you believe that the God of the universe would stoop to such transparently low magic tricks as multiplying loaves and fishes to wow the yokels?

I believe you have described this incident in an unworthy manner, and I challenge you (in a friendly manner of course) to demonstrate why it was "low".

Do you believe that Jesus, the paragon of peace and love and non-violence

I think this too is simplistic.

could become enraged and go on a berserk rampage, causing much damage to private property and legitimate commerce?

Enraged?? Beserk?? More over-statement I'm afraid. It was his father's temple. The commerce was not legitimate in the form it had taken. But clearly the event happened.

If you put in the unnecessary adjectives, I will be forced to correct them. If you just ask the questions, I will always give an honest answer. Thanks for the questions.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Goody. Let's call you an aThorist or an aPoseidonist.

You could call me all sorts of things! (Many others have!)

[zdave]

erich von stalhein wrote

I asked you to pick your own argument and show me how it is destroyed. Do you want me to pick?

OK, perhaps you might destroy the argument from the historical evidence for Jesus. But if you're not into history, try the Cosmological argument or the Design argument, I'm not fussy.


I don't have a strongest argument, I think that is a bit silly (not silly of you to ask, but silly if I had one). I think the only sensible thing is to weigh all the evidence, all the arguments. That has a cumulative effect that is persuasive to me. So I'll stick with your offer to destroy the Jesus argument. You may wish to start another thread.

This is pointless. I agree that all the evidence needs to be weighed, however you have as much stated that you're a believer and that we have to guess why you're a believer.

Let's start over... What do you believe and why do you believe it?

I won't play a game of hot and cold on your beliefs.

[ghoulslime]

zdave wrote

This is pointless. I agree that all the evidence needs to be weighed, however you have as much stated that you're a believer and that we have to guess why you're a believer.

Let's start over... What do you believe and why do you believe it?

I won't play a game of hot and cold on your beliefs.

Everything that eric von spurious has posted thus far is pointless. He is just another cheap conman trying to convince you that he has a magic rabbit up his sleeve, when all he really has is some pink Hello Kitty underpants chock full of jack shit. The creepy bastard doesn't even have the intellectual honesty to state the tenets of his delusion. Jesus Leprechauns! The "I have a leprechaun lord, but I bet you can't guess what color his boots are" argument is about fresh as a crack whore at 5 am.

Maybe I have exhausted my lifetime quota of listening to pompous windbags blowing hot air about their imaginary friends, or maybe I’m just losing my spunk, but I can’t even find it in me to waste my time reminding him that he is vacuous piss pot, and that his vainglorious claims of celestial supernatural marvels are as alluring as a 6’ 5” overweight ladyboy with running mascara.