Where the **** was Paul?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Og3 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:36 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:04 pm
BTW, Captain, there is no need to capitalise the H in "he". Even their own KJV Bible doesn't do that and it's got nothing to do with respect.
It was not the grammatical style of 1611. It is now common style to capitalize references to deity. If you choose not to do it, feel free. No one claims it's respect; it's simply grammar.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

captain howdy
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by captain howdy » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:25 am

SEG wrote: BTW, Captain, there is no need to capitalise the H in "he". Even their own KJV Bible doesn't do that and it's got nothing to do with respect.
Oh I know. I’m pretty inconsistent about it really. Sometimes I just capitalize out of habit, freq. I don’t do it at all. That time I just did it out of clarity so the reader would know which “He” I was alluding to.

captain howdy
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by captain howdy » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:00 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:52 pm
captain howdy wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:28 pm
What you're asking me to do is to lower my standards of evidence. People, believers and many non-believers alike, tend to speak about searching for evidence of God as if they were looking for evidence of phlogiston. But this is the wrong way to view the issue. God isn't some element on the periodic table we have to go hunt down, God is an intelligent agent quite capable of speaking for himself and needs no human spokesman.

Think about it like this: I don't have God's cell phone number but he does have mine. Why am I responsible for trying to call him?
I don't think evidence is something that can or should be used in a uniform way regardless of context. It is not a question of lower or higher standards but what would be appropriate.
First of all, thanks again for your patience as always. Re: evidence I’m inclined to agree with you. Og3 seems to be asking for one uniform criterion he seems to want me to judge all truth claims by which unless I’m misreading him seems odd. The appropriate standard for what qualifies as evidence should be tailored to the type of truth claim being made. You wouldn’t hold the claim “I’ll call you tomorrow” to the same evidential standard you would for the claim “I’m currently in a relationship with an extraterrestrial” for instance. Claim number 2 lends itself to a very high standard which I have applied to all truth claims of the type Christians make re: God. If you claim to be in direct contact with an extraterrestrial at some point ET has to validate what you say. If you claim to be in direct contact with Beethoven then B needs to validate that claim, not you. If you proclaim yourself to be in a relationship with one certain historical figure then either that historical figure validates what you say or into the pending file you go, you and your literature both. Your claim has failed and nothing else matters.
“Moonwood the Hare” wrote: I agree that God is an agent and can look for you but that does not mean there is nothing you can do to make yourself more findable.
I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. God’s no bounty hunter he’s omnipotent and omniscient. He couldn’t find you any easier if your butt had a bell on it.
“Moonwood the Hare” wrote:If we are talking about a relationship then by definition there are two sides. If the phone is ringing and you don't pick up then that is down to you. If you unplug the phone then that will stop someone calling however much they want to.
Also by definition both sides have to make their counterparts aware of their existence. Very difficult to have a relationship with someone you don't even know exists. Kinda lays the groundwork for everything else.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
captain howdy wrote:What does "level the playing field" mean exactly? Are you asking me to suspend disbelief? If you are I am disinclined for all the reasons already stated. You are offering Christian literature in lieu of Christ directly validating your claims in an unmistakable manner which he could easily do if he chose. And not only that, I have to read your Christian literature in just the right way. With an open heart. I have to level the playing field first.
I was not suggesting the literature as an alternative to the relationship but as a means to that end. But if you think that is impossible or undesirable it may not be a way for you, at least at present. The reason for suggesting an open heart is that if you do read the Bible with the attitude of seeing how many faults or problems you can find with it then you are not as likely to hear God speak through it.
If God chooses to speak to the human race through a book then he is severely limiting his potential audience. After all, a great many competing religions have books of their own too, so God's signal could tend to get lost amidst the noise. Now if God spoke directly to the human race, other religions don't have something like that. The religion that can actually produce the God they advertise will sweep the world in 10 minutes, and it should be an easy matter if God were actually there and had the motivations Christians say he has. But strangely---silence. I have to go hunt God down in one particular religion's holy book. And with an open mind and heart too, or else God will remain silent. Is it possible your God doesn't want to be found?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
captain howdy wrote:No. My experience has been that the more skeptical I am the more likely I am to arrive at the truth of a great many kinds of claims. But here you are asking me to do the reverse---suspend disbelief. But Christianity has to stand or fall on its merits just like any other truth claim. God's either there or he isn't. I ask to speak to your God, you offer me literature. That's what puts you guys in the pending file.
Well I would say be even more skeptical. Don't just question particular conclusions but question your whole approach to knowing. Pascal once said reason is feeble if it does not go so far as to see its own limitations. The same applies to evidence. This is why I hold a personalist rather than a rationalist approach to knowing. Sometimes it is right to be skeptical and sometimes it is right to be open and there is no rule that overrides personal judgement to tell you which situation you are in.
Here's a rule I find handy---
1. Existential claims are amenable to reason.

2. The claim "God exists" is an existential claim.

3. The claim "God exists" is amenable to reason.
Again, many thanks for your patience, you and Og3 both. And best regards to you both this new year

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by SEG » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:11 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:36 pm
It was not the grammatical style of 1611. It is now common style to capitalize references to deity. If you choose not to do it, feel free. No one claims it's respect; it's simply grammar.
Wrong, lots of Christians and even some atheists say that it is used out of respect for a deity. You should know that, you have been around the ropes for a while. It's hard to think why a supreme being would need or require a bending of grammatical rules by its fawning worshippers to show it respect, but meh!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Og3 » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:53 pm

For the patience, Captain, you are welcome. And I will again second Moonwood's wisdom here:
Moonwood The Hare wrote:Well I would say be even more skeptical. Don't just question particular conclusions but question your whole approach to knowing. Pascal once said reason is feeble if it does not go so far as to see its own limitations. The same applies to evidence.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Claire
Posts: 1364
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Claire » Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:07 pm

.
Last edited by Claire on Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Moonwood the Hare » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:03 pm

captain howdy wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:00 am

First of all, thanks again for your patience as always. Re: evidence I’m inclined to agree with you. Og3 seems to be asking for one uniform criterion he seems to want me to judge all truth claims by which unless I’m misreading him seems odd. The appropriate standard for what qualifies as evidence should be tailored to the type of truth claim being made. You wouldn’t hold the claim “I’ll call you tomorrow” to the same evidential standard you would for the claim “I’m currently in a relationship with an extraterrestrial” for instance. Claim number 2 lends itself to a very high standard which I have applied to all truth claims of the type Christians make re: God. If you claim to be in direct contact with an extraterrestrial at some point ET has to validate what you say. If you claim to be in direct contact with Beethoven then B needs to validate that claim, not you. If you proclaim yourself to be in a relationship with one certain historical figure then either that historical figure validates what you say or into the pending file you go, you and your literature both. Your claim has failed and nothing else matters.
I don't think it is simply a matter of higher or lower standards of evidence. If someone claims to be in a relationship with an extraterrestrial or Beethoven I may not need to evaluate that claim at all. If for some reason I did then what evidence would be appropriate would depend on why I needed to evaluate the claim.
“Moonwood the Hare” wrote: I agree that God is an agent and can look for you but that does not mean there is nothing you can do to make yourself more findable.
I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. God’s no bounty hunter he’s omnipotent and omniscient. He couldn’t find you any easier if your butt had a bell on it.
We are talking about an interpersonal relationship not God finding some kind of object. I can't prove that openness helps but it often seems to have been helpful.
“Moonwood the Hare” wrote:If we are talking about a relationship then by definition there are two sides. If the phone is ringing and you don't pick up then that is down to you. If you unplug the phone then that will stop someone calling however much they want to.
Also by definition both sides have to make their counterparts aware of their existence. Very difficult to have a relationship with someone you don't even know exists. Kinda lays the groundwork for everything else.
I am not so sure about that. A baby is in a relationship with its mother long before it applies so abstract an idea as existence to her.
If God chooses to speak to the human race through a book then he is severely limiting his potential audience. After all, a great many competing religions have books of their own too, so God's signal could tend to get lost amidst the noise. Now if God spoke directly to the human race, other religions don't have something like that. The religion that can actually produce the God they advertise will sweep the world in 10 minutes, and it should be an easy matter if God were actually there and had the motivations Christians say he has. But strangely---silence. I have to go hunt God down in one particular religion's holy book. And with an open mind and heart too, or else God will remain silent. Is it possible your God doesn't want to be found?
When I suggested reading one of the gospels in this way it was just that a suggestion. If you don't want to take it up then don't. If later you change your mind then do. I can't explain why God does not communicate with people in the way you think he should, so if for you that is a reason for not accepting that he might communicate in other ways then so be it.
Here's a rule I find handy---
1. Existential claims are amenable to reason.

2. The claim "God exists" is an existential claim.

3. The claim "God exists" is amenable to reason.
I don't really know what you mean. If by 1 you mean all claims that an entity exists can be decided by rational inference then I disagree. I am not even sure if the claim God exists is really an existential claim. Saying there is a being who created everything seems to me to be quite a different kind of claim from saying there is a red car in the drive. And neither claim seems to me to be one that can be proved by by inference from first principles though I suppose the former could be proved by inference in some contexts and given some other data.
Again, many thanks for your patience, you and Og3 both. And best regards to you both this new year
and to you

captain howdy
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by captain howdy » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:56 am

Og3 wrote:
captain howdy wrote:The reason for this is because I have already evaluated your claim and rejected it as false.
And I once analyzed the idea that a thinking man could own a Toyota car and not be an idiot, and rejected it as false. Later I was forced to rethink this idea, and discovered it to be true. So having once closed your mind, you can never submit the question for re-examination? You can never re-evaluate an idea, once it stops being "pending?"
The Christian claims to be in a relationship with an historical figure from 2000 years ago. Since the historical figure has failed to validate that claim I have consigned Christianity to the pending file and I feel I was reasonable to do so. If this situation should change and the historical figure in question chooses to come out from behind the curtains and validate the relationship then I will take Christianity out of the pending file and reexamine it.
Og3 wrote:
captain howdy wrote:If you assert that you are in contact with an extraterrestrial the best way to validate such a claim is for the extraterrestrial himself to directly validate it. If you claim to have in your possession a genie in a magic lamp the best way to validate such a claim is for the genie himself to directly validate it. If you claim you are in direct contact with Beethoven the best way to validate such a claim is for Beethoven himself to directly validate it. You claim to be in direct contact with Jesus of Nazareth, an historical figure from 2000 years ago. The best way to validate such a claim is for Jesus himself to directly validate it, and he hasn't.


Two arguments are made here: Best evidence, and "He hasn't."

Yes, direct interaction with Jesus of Nazareth would be the best evidence. But would you accept that evidence if you saw it? Or would you believe you had had a seizure, or seen an illusion, or suffered a delusion, or experienced a psychotic break, or ... Once long ago, I asked you what evidence would be sufficient. If I recall, you wanted a complete override of your free will, forcing you to believe against your will.
Is God omnipotent or is he not? Are you suggesting God can be anything less than 100% persuasive? According to scripture he has the ability to convince the entire human race of the reality of his existence whenever he wants to--
Romans 14: 10-11

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.
’”
emphasis added

Notice that nobody will be questioning their sanity or suspecting some trick is being played---every knee will bow and every tongue acknowledge. So if he's omnipotent enough to convince everyone on earth of who he is on judgment day then he can do it on any other day as well. But yet---he hasn't. And I've already rejected the free will defense. By failing to make his existence clear God isn't protecting your free will, he's misrepresenting reality in such a way that it appears as if God does not exist when in fact he does. Has he somehow limited your free will by making the existence of the ground under your feet clear to you? Besides, which would be better---to enjoy your free will for the few moments of time you're on this earth only to pay for it with an eternity of torment in hell, or suffer impaired free will for those few moments but be rewarded with eternal joy and bliss in the hereafter?
Og3 wrote:To repeat the above analogy -- you can't expect a phone call if you're not willing to answer the phone.
So far as I am aware there is no phone ringing. And let's face it--you have to be in the vicinity of a phone before you can hear it ring, and neither you nor Moonwood are in my vicinity which would seem to suggest that I am in a better position to know if the phone's ringing than you are. The people that are in no position to know both insist the phone is ringing, but the party in the best position to know (me) says it isn't. That speaks for itself right there.
Og3 wrote:
captain howdy wrote: Carl Sagan said claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This has been my experience, so I'm inclined to agree with him.
Actually, it's a quite absurd statement. Simple ordinary evidence will surely suffice. If someone claims he has a motor that runs on magnets, all he has to do is to show me the motor, and let me take it apart. If you claim to have a visitor from the planet Vulcan, cell-phone videos of the landing, along with a bit of his technology -- those would serve nicely as evidence.

Any claim requires evidence. "Extraordinary" is merely a pejorative thrown in to justify refusing to think about it.
The evidential bar I've set applies to all claims of the type you're making and I think it's quite reasonable.
Why not apply it to ALL claims whatsoever? THAT would be a level playing field. Your girlfriend says that she loves you. You say, "That's extraordinary. Show me extraordinary proof of that claim." She says something unprintable and burns your phone number. Ooops.

The box of breakfast cereal claims to provide 36% of your daily recommended intake for iron. So you take it to a lab and say, "Prove it."

The dish detergent says it will make your dishes sparkle. You call the company and say "Prove it." They say, "Wash your dishes and you'll see." You say, "why should I have to do the work? You're the one making the claim."

My point -- and I do have one -- is that you need to have ONE standard for all proof. Otherwise, you're picking and choosing what you will or won't believe, and it's not an exercise of logic and reason, but and exercise of choice and will. You choose to reject the evidence for Christ; you justify it by claiming a HIGHER standard for "That Sort of Claim." Sorry, Cap'n, that's not reason. It's dogmatism.
Your own examples negate the point you're trying to make. When you apply the same standard to different kinds of claims you get results that are less than satisfactory. That's because it is not appropriate to apply the same standard to different kinds of truth claims. Saying you're in a relationship with your wife would require a far lower standard of evidence than saying you're in a relationship with Beethoven since for a husband to be in a relationship with his wife is commonplace while so far as is known it is not possible to be in an actual relationship with somebody who died hundreds of years ago. The claim to be in a real-time relationship with a dead person is an extraordinary claim; the claim to be in a relationship with your own wife isn't, so different standards of evidence should be applied.
Og3 wrote:
captain howdy wrote:The reason I decline to evaluate your literature (the scripture you want me to read) is because once a truth claim has failed due to lack of applicable evidence (direct confirmation by agent in question) further attempts to validate the claim that do not meet the evidential standard (such as scripture) are inapplicable.
Oh, that's a lovely rule. Unfortunately, it's just as abitrary as the 10th rule of the Pythagoreans, namely, "Assist a man who is loading freight, but never when he is unloading freight."

I mean, if you choose arbitrarily not to believe in God, then so be it. That's your right. But let's not be absurd and pretend that an arbitrary choice can be justified by stacking the deck and closing your ears. If you want to make an arbitrary choice, great, but please don't insult us by pretending it's logical.
Arbitrary? What's arbitrary about it? If your car craps out and the mechanic tells you that his diagnosis is that an expensive part of your motor has failed and you're short of money, do you ask him to re-run the tests until a cheaper part is blamed instead?
Og3 wrote:
captain howdy wrote:At some point the believer has to stop talking and God has to start talking, and as far as I can discern He isn't. Until He does, nothing else matters. As soon as he does, I'll see you in church.
Again, your analogy -- you have to answer the phone.
The people who keep insisting my phone is ringing are in no position to know, while the party in the best position to know says it isn't ringing at all. This has implications.

Claire
Posts: 1364
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Claire » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:11 am

.
Last edited by Claire on Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Where the **** was Paul?

Post by Og3 » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:29 pm

CapnHowdy wrote:Arbitrary? What's arbitrary about it? If your car craps out and the mechanic tells you that his diagnosis is that an expensive part of your motor has failed and you're short of money, do you ask him to re-run the tests until a cheaper part is blamed instead?
No, but you might test his reasoning by getting a second opinion.

With regards to your thinking, the only second opinion possible is to learn the best rules and best practices for rationality and to apply them as objectively as possible in order to validate (or invalidate) your opinion.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply