|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2008 : 07:47:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Adam and Eve were absolutely certain of god's existence, as they had direct contact with him. Adam and Eve disobeyed god, proving they had free will. Ergo, knowledge of god's existence does not impinge upon free will. |
The funny (and I mean really funny) thing about that is that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil before they disobeyed God. They didn't know that disobeying was a bad thing. They couldn't know. The idea that they disobeyed as an act of free will is therefore ludicrous, because the idea that anyone can make a rational, informed decision based upon no knowledge at all of the possible risks and benefits of a decision is absurd.| While the "god can't show himself or we'd lose our free will" argument is a popular apologetic, it's easy to prove false and unbiblical. Even Peter, Jesus' (and therefore god's) closest apostle, rejected Christ three times. So this whole business about losing free will is a non-starter. God could make himself known without damaging anything. |
Except that Peter had to take it on faith that Jesus was God, and not just a magician. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2008 : 08:33:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Except that Peter had to take it on faith that Jesus was God, and not just a magician.
|
Except viewed in light of the Christian concept of the Trinity, Jesus is god. They are the same person. So the argument becomes "Peter had to take it on faith that god was god," which could apply to anyone who meets god, rendering the "meeting god negates free will" apologetic false.
I'll grant you that the Adam and Eve narrative poses its own set of problems. How about Moses? Presumably Moses still had the free will to ignore the burning bush's imperatives, otherwise there would be nothing theologically noteworthy about the man. If Moses was an unwilling agent, then he was simply an empty vessel controlled by god, like a robot or an organism assimilated by the Borg. Textually, after Moses and God meet, it would make more sense to refer to Moses as Yahweh from then on, since it would be Yahweh in a Moses suit.
I suppose you could argue that the burning bush and the booming voice were merely manifestations of Yahweh, and Moses was never in the true presence of god himself. Still, I'd say that's splitting hairs. If the apologetic is knowledge of god's reality negates free will, then manifestations should count. If not, god could "manifest" himself in Time's Square for all to see without impinging upon our free will and save a great many souls in the process.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/28/2008 08:34:46 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 09:26:36 [Permalink]
|
Is this thread done? I still kind of wanted to know a) Dave, do you still believe the "Proof denies faith which denies free will" apologetic can be successfully argued? (Especially when people like Astropin make statements like "To me....however unlikely, and advanced life form is FAR more likely than the existence of a real God. Therefore there could not be any proof of the existence of God.")
And b) Astropin, after hearing from other posters, do you still hold to your initial premise that "Natural explanations ALWAYS trump Supernatural explanations?" Neither of these issues have been satisfactorily settled to my mind, but it seems like most everyone else has lost interest.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 10:55:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is this thread done? I still kind of wanted to know a) Dave, do you still believe the "Proof denies faith which denies free will" apologetic can be successfully argued? (Especially when people like Astropin make statements like "To me....however unlikely, and advanced life form is FAR more likely than the existence of a real God. Therefore there could not be any proof of the existence of God.")
And b) Astropin, after hearing from other posters, do you still hold to your initial premise that "Natural explanations ALWAYS trump Supernatural explanations?" Neither of these issues have been satisfactorily settled to my mind, but it seems like most everyone else has lost interest.
|
Well the only arguments I can't argue with are they one's that basically said "An omnipotent being....or even a being such as Q could simply force me to believe in them by altering my mind".
Left to my own decisions I stand by my original conclusions.
You mentioned earlier about a being basically doing everything that one of the religious texts prophesied and how unlikely that would be unless they were being performed by the prophesied being.
A Q like being might very well use that information to present itself as a god to us. Call it a twisted game or call it "easy street" to wining over the population at large. I still would find this scenario more likely than an actual supernatural entity. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 10/30/2008 11:10:02 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2008 : 11:36:07 [Permalink]
|
Now that I think of it, it's right there in Creationist, straw-man apologetics and gets repeated endlessly: "a dog whelping a litter of kittens, or a monkey birthing a man." Either would give proof of the existence of God, but thus far in the history of our planet, it hasn't happened, nor ever will. How d'ya like that, Kent, you blathering ignoramus?
Oh, and a man becoming a bird might qualify as well but frail humans have already done that; a judge & jury. 
Sorry, couldn't resist....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 12:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Now that I think of it, it's right there in Creationist, straw-man apologetics and gets repeated endlessly: "a dog whelping a litter of kittens, or a monkey birthing a man." Either would give proof of the existence of God, but thus far in the history of our planet, it hasn't happened, nor ever will. How d'ya like that, Kent, you blathering ignoramus?
Oh, and a man becoming a bird might qualify as well but frail humans have already done that; a judge & jury.
Sorry, couldn't resist....
|
Wouldn't you rather conclude that the evidence is flawed in these cases? E.g. a hoax?
(On a similar side note: an oft cited "falsification" of evolution is the devonian bunny. Wouldn't most "evolutionists" argue that such a find is a hoax or due errors in determination of age?) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 12:27:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Well the only arguments I can't argue with are they one's that basically said "An omnipotent being....or even a being such as Q could simply force me to believe in them by altering my mind". |
Which, incidentally, is the only way I can see such a being denying us our free will.
Left to my own decisions I stand by my original conclusions.
You mentioned earlier about a being basically doing everything that one of the religious texts prophesied and how unlikely that would be unless they were being performed by the prophesied being.
A Q like being might very well use that information to present itself as a god to us. Call it a twisted game or call it "easy street" to wining over the population at large. I still would find this scenario more likely than an actual supernatural entity. |
I guess what I want to hear better fleshed out then is why do you consider it more likely? Right now it sounds a bit like you are simply asserting that "natural explanations ALWAYS trump supernatural explanations" should be somehow considered axiomatic, but I feel that's circular reasoning. I still think the standard of reasonable doubt and Occam's razor must play a role when evaluating evidence for the supernatural.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 13:01:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by filthy
Now that I think of it, it's right there in Creationist, straw-man apologetics and gets repeated endlessly: "a dog whelping a litter of kittens, or a monkey birthing a man." Either would give proof of the existence of God, but thus far in the history of our planet, it hasn't happened, nor ever will. How d'ya like that, Kent, you blathering ignoramus?
Oh, and a man becoming a bird might qualify as well but frail humans have already done that; a judge & jury.
Sorry, couldn't resist....
|
Wouldn't you rather conclude that the evidence is flawed in these cases? E.g. a hoax?
(On a similar side note: an oft cited "falsification" of evolution is the devonian bunny. Wouldn't most "evolutionists" argue that such a find is a hoax or due errors in determination of age?)
|
Not if the proper examinations had been done and there is found no other explanation. The same holds for the ledgendary lagomorph of the Devonian. And, these these examinations & studies would have been done to a turn by secular science -- evolutionists.
I really despise the lable: "evolutionist." It implies some sort of a cult, as does "creationist;" a set of beliefs with nothing of substance to support them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 13:14:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
[Right now it sounds a bit like you are simply asserting that "natural explanations ALWAYS trump supernatural explanations" should be somehow considered axiomatic, but I feel that's circular reasoning. I still think the standard of reasonable doubt and Occam's razor must play a role when evaluating evidence for the supernatural.
|
I may very well have argued myself into a box....I don't know. My whole point to this thread was that I can't think of anything that would persuade me to buy a supernatural explanation OVER a natural one.
For me - a highly evolved being (however unlikely) would always seem MORE likely than a supernatural one.
I think an Occam's Razor type argument actually reinforces my stance.
We've all heard "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". And I understand that my stance is basically an argument from ignorance...."You can't prove God does exist, so God doesn't exist."
But it's even more than that. I'm trying to include which explanation would be more likely to be true.....supernatural or natural? I've answered that question for myself.....whether or not it's a completely ignorant one I leave for others to decide. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 10/30/2008 13:16:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 16:30:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Is this thread done? I still kind of wanted to know a) Dave, do you still believe the "Proof denies faith which denies free will" apologetic can be successfully argued? (Especially when people like Astropin make statements like "To me....however unlikely, and advanced life form is FAR more likely than the existence of a real God. Therefore there could not be any proof of the existence of God.") |
Sorry, I'd forgotten about this.
One, it doesn't matter whether I agree with the apologetic or not for my original point. It only matters that people who are attempting to prove the existence of God believe the apologetic, and are thus trying to damn me to Hell. The rats!
Two, for all practical intents and purposes, the difference between God and a being that is not God but can fool me into concluding that it is God is moot. If a real-life Q wanted to maintain an impersonation of the God of Abraham to fool us all, would there be any way for us to penetrate the illusion?
Three, Chris Angel can walk on water. Peter and Moses and all the rest saw what amounted to parlor tricks. That they took those things as proof only means that they had much lower standards of evidence than I do. They had faith. I'd be asking for something much more substantial by way of evidence before looking towards God as a plausible explanation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 19:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by Hawks
Wouldn't you rather conclude that the evidence is flawed in these cases? E.g. a hoax?
(On a similar side note: an oft cited "falsification" of evolution is the devonian bunny. Wouldn't most "evolutionists" argue that such a find is a hoax or due errors in determination of age?)
|
Not if the proper examinations had been done and there is found no other explanation. The same holds for the ledgendary lagomorph of the Devonian. And, these these examinations & studies would have been done to a turn by secular science -- evolutionists.
(bolding added) |
So you end up relying on a god-of-the-gaps argument to prove the existence of a god? Or reject a really well-supported theory due to one anomalous observation? Personally, I'd rather go with the hoax angle. But that's just me.
I really despise the lable: "evolutionist." It implies some sort of a cult, as does "creationist;" a set of beliefs with nothing of substance to support them.
|
I suppose that Dembski and his ilk have been trying to smear the term evolutionist for some time now. Perhaps it's rubbing off. I see it as a useful label to describe someone who accepts evolution. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2008 : 20:39:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
So you end up relying on a god-of-the-gaps argument to prove the existence of a god? |
It wouldn't prove god or creation, it would just prove the modern formulation of evolution to be in error.
| Or reject a really well-supported theory due to one anomalous observation? Personally, I'd rather go with the hoax angle. But that's just me. |
Well, in truth, a single poorly-documented find probably wouldn't rock the establishment, no. I think what Haldane's famous quip about fossil rabbits in the Precambrian is meant to convey more than anything is that the evidence dictates the theory, not vice versa. When people ask "What could falsify the theory of evolution?" The response is "evidence that contradicts the theory." It goes without saying that such evidence would have to be solid, verifiable and convincing. Unlike, say, the Paluxy Tracks.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/30/2008 20:40:32 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 02:07:09 [Permalink]
|
| So you end up relying on a god-of-the-gaps argument to prove the existence of a god? Or reject a really well-supported theory due to one anomalous observation? Personally, I'd rather go with the hoax angle. But that's just me. |
Hardly. I wrote to the effect that secular science could find no other explanation and reach no other conclusion. That would be the cumulation some lengthy and exacting studies. As for hoaxes, never be too quick to laugh something off. It might turn out not to be one.
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2008 : 13:10:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
| So you end up relying on a god-of-the-gaps argument to prove the existence of a god? Or reject a really well-supported theory due to one anomalous observation? Personally, I'd rather go with the hoax angle. But that's just me. |
Hardly. I wrote to the effect that secular science could find no other explanation and reach no other conclusion. That would be the cumulation some lengthy and exacting studies. |
And why is that not a god-of-the-gaps argument? And since when would the inability of secular science to find an alternative conclusion lead to the acceptance of god rather than just saying "we don't know"?
| As for hoaxes, never be too quick to laugh something off. It might turn out not to be one. |
Should I supply a list of suspected hoaxes that most likely were hoaxes? Or some high-profile cases in the scientific literature where outright fraud was found?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 10:57:58 [Permalink]
|
| And why is that not a god-of-the-gaps argument? And since when would the inability of secular science to find an alternative conclusion lead to the acceptance of god rather than just saying "we don't know"? |
I am not arguing the existence of God. The question is: "What would it take to prove....?" As I stated eariler: "It would take a miracle." And it would take a miracle, or several, to make science theorize it.
Should I supply a list of suspected hoaxes that most likely were hoaxes? Or some high-profile cases in the scientific literature where outright fraud was found?
|
Not necessary; I'm already familiar with many if not most of them and can easily come up with a list of my own.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What would it take to prove…
