How do we approach a new proposition?

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:36 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:46 pm
I note that you've omitted this:
Og wrote: Counterexamples that clarify this point:
Daniel 1:8-20
Daniel 3:1-30
Daniel 6:6-28
Exodus 1:15-21
the OT is replete with such defiances... Samuel rebuking King Saul, Nathan rebuking King David, David defying while still respecting King Saul, Elijah rebuking King Ahab and Queen Jezebel ... Unjust rules are to be opposed and defied; but to just rule one must submit.

And Paul, being greatly learned in the Law, knew this.
This is the key point: Your counterexamples were about defying authorities, not being subject to them. When Paul said,
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities" I brought up a good analogy. I compared Paul's passage with your god being responsible for assigning those governing authorities that you don't like.

I note that you've omitted this:

"But the Geneva convention holds this to be false: A soldier has a duty to refuse unjust or inhumane orders. By the same token, we have a duty to refuse unjust, ungodly, and inhumane orders given by earthly leaders."
So why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?

Oh I see now! It was a DIVINE leader and not an EARTHLY leader that decrees it right to kill defenceless babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and animals. Being divine, that leader has every right to commit all the atrocities he wants because he created all life. Is that how your morality works?
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: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:04 am

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:11 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
Well how do you know that the god that spoke to you in a dream was your particular god? Do you agree with my statement: "That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true."? IOW could you use faith to determine if any statement is true? For example, could you use faith to determine if white people are more intelligent than black people?
Arrr.
Faith is not how you "know" something. Faith is what you place in something that you know.

I know that the bridge will hold me up. I have faith in it. I act on my faith by crossing the bridge. I hear it creak when I step on it. But I know it is strong and has enough strength for me. So my faith is the substance, the underlayment, of my hope (crossing the bridge).

Or you know that your wife is faithful. That's just who she is (Let's say). So a friend calls you and says that your wife is down at the local motel with a nasty old sailor. If you have faith in her, because you KNOW her, you don't worry. If you don't, you run down there to the motel and discover it's not your wife at all. A fight ensues, people get punched in the nose, etc., etc.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:34 am

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:36 pm
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:46 pm
I note that you've omitted this:
Og wrote: Counterexamples that clarify this point:
Daniel 1:8-20
Daniel 3:1-30
Daniel 6:6-28
Exodus 1:15-21
the OT is replete with such defiances... Samuel rebuking King Saul, Nathan rebuking King David, David defying while still respecting King Saul, Elijah rebuking King Ahab and Queen Jezebel ... Unjust rules are to be opposed and defied; but to just rule one must submit.

And Paul, being greatly learned in the Law, knew this.
This is the key point: Your counterexamples were about defying authorities, not being subject to them. When Paul said,
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities" I brought up a good analogy. I compared Paul's passage with your god being responsible for assigning those governing authorities that you don't like.

I note that you've omitted this:

"But the Geneva convention holds this to be false: A soldier has a duty to refuse unjust or inhumane orders. By the same token, we have a duty to refuse unjust, ungodly, and inhumane orders given by earthly leaders."
So why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?

Oh I see now! It was a DIVINE leader and not an EARTHLY leader that decrees it right to kill defenceless babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and animals. Being divine, that leader has every right to commit all the atrocities he wants because he created all life. Is that how your morality works?
You're conflating two issues here.

Issue 1: Earthly leaders, whom we are told to respect and to honor: Yes, we must (in general) keep the law, just as a soldier under the Geneva Convention must, in general, follow the orders of his commander. But in the specific case where an order violates what we know to be good and righteous, we have a duty to disobey that order. You, in Oz, have never had a Civil Disobedience movement that I know of. Here, we've had and we have many. some of them have been righteous, as for example the campaign for Civil Rights of the 1950s and 1960s. Others are not matters of principle at all, but matters of simple defiance to authority ("Occupy Wall Street!").

In Exodus 1, the women defied Pharaoh as a matter of principle, and they were rewarded. Also in Daniel -- Daniel chose to remain kosher; Azariah, Hananiah and Mishael chose not to worship the idol; Daniel chose to continue praying. In each case keeping divine ordinances defied earthly law as a matter of principle. And in each case they were rewarded. &c.

Paul gives us a general rule: Being a Christian is not an excuse to ignore the law. But when the law is ungodly, then we can hold to the higher law.

Issue 2: You project earthly law onto God, and you suppose first that there can be a god who is not the basis of moral law -- a contradiction in terms. Then you demand that I resolve this contradiction that you've created. You see, if there is no God, then it is only your opinion that the things that happened to the Canaanites and Amalekites was evil.

I'm not responsible for your opinions.

And that ignores that they were baby-roasting pagans, and richly deserved twice as bad as what befell them...
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:23 am

Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:11 pm
Well how do you know that the god that spoke to you in a dream was your particular god?
IOW how do you identify that it was your god speaking to you in the dream and not one pretending to be him?
Do you agree with my statement: "That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true."? IOW could you use faith to determine if any statement is true? For example, could you use faith to determine if white people are more intelligent than black people?
Arrr.
Faith is not how you "know" something. Faith is what you place in something that you know.
But that knowledge may be false, correct? You could place your faith in something that you know is true (whites are more intelligent than blacks for example) and later after examining the evidence against it, find out that you were wrong.
I know that the bridge will hold me up. I have faith in it. I act on my faith by crossing the bridge. I hear it creak when I step on it. But I know it is strong and has enough strength for me. So my faith is the substance, the underlayment, of my hope (crossing the bridge).
So what happens if you get 3/4 along the bridge and it collapses, sending you into the water? You swim to the edge and walk 10 miles and you find a very similar bridge that has crocodiles swimming under it. Would using faith alone be a good mechanism for crossing those types of bridges safely?

Finally, is there any position that you couldn't hold, based on faith alone?
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.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:34 am

SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:36 pm
So why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?

Oh I see now! It was a DIVINE leader and not an EARTHLY leader that decrees it right to kill defenceless babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and animals. Being divine, that leader has every right to commit all the atrocities he wants because he created all life. Is that how your morality works?
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:34 am
You're conflating two issues here.

Issue 1: Earthly leaders, whom we are told to respect and to honor: Yes, we must (in general) keep the law, just as a soldier under the Geneva Convention must, in general, follow the orders of his commander. But in the specific case where an order violates what we know to be good and righteous, we have a duty to disobey that order.
So ...why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:34 am
You, in Oz, have never had a Civil Disobedience movement that I know of. Here, we've had and we have many. some of them have been righteous, as for example the campaign for Civil Rights of the 1950s and 1960s. Others are not matters of principle at all, but matters of simple defiance to authority ("Occupy Wall Street!").

In Exodus 1, the women defied Pharaoh as a matter of principle, and they were rewarded. Also in Daniel -- Daniel chose to remain kosher; Azariah, Hananiah and Mishael chose not to worship the idol; Daniel chose to continue praying. In each case keeping divine ordinances defied earthly law as a matter of principle. And in each case they were rewarded. &c.

Paul gives us a general rule: Being a Christian is not an excuse to ignore the law. But when the law is ungodly, then we can hold to the higher law.
How do you know when the law is ungodly, as your god is inconsistent with his own and human morals?
Issue 2: You project earthly law onto God, and you suppose first that there can be a god who is not the basis of moral law -- a contradiction in terms.
I would expect that your god should be AT LEAST as moral as you and I, but in the Bible stories he has done what we would never do as caring, responsible people do. If there is a god that has chosen his own nature to be all benevolent, he could still derive his morals from somewhere else.

Then you demand that I resolve this contradiction that you've created. You see, if there is no God, then it is only your opinion that the things that happened to the Canaanites and Amalekites was evil.
If there are no gods, we can go to simple definitions that most humans could all identify with:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.

Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity, causes no harm to yourself, others or the environment and minimises pain and suffering. They are consistent with our earthly laws and so we can dispense with the imagined opinions of made up deities.
I'm not responsible for your opinions.
No, but you are responsible to earthly laws and ethics. I don't know how humans could possibly be responsible for the laws of deities that aren't living with our problems. You only assign responsibility to children once they understand the implications and intent of moral instructions. How could humans be responsible for the whims of gods that they don't fully understand?
And that ignores that they were baby-roasting pagans, and richly deserved twice as bad as what befell them...
Except that babies, toddlers and animals didn't deserve zip, but were slaughtered without good reasons. Yet you want to slaughter them twice!
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: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:53 am

SEG wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:23 am
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:11 pm
Well how do you know that the god that spoke to you in a dream was your particular god? ... IOW how do you identify that it was your god speaking to you in the dream and not one pretending to be him?

Alright, let's take it from the beginning. If
1. you had a dream in which you dreamed that you were conversing with a deity, and
2. you asked that deity both his name and
3. how you might know that the dream was a vision and not merely undigested pepperoni, and
4. that deity, whose name was given in premise 2 (YHWH, Aristotle, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Sir Edmund Hillary... Whoever you were conversing with) said to you, "I, Sir Edmund Hillary [or whomever], will prove to you that I am a deity, by causing there to be blood on the floor of your kitchen when you awaken," and
5. When you awakened and went into the kitchen, there was blood on the floor of the kitchen,

THEN

And ONLY THEN

it MIGHT

Be a reasonable inference -- keeping in mind that an inference is not something of which you are absolutely certain, but something which fulfills the conditions implied by other circumstances and facts -- that Sir Edmund Hillary was a deity and had caused blood to manifest in your kitchen.

This would not be the only reasonable inference. It would be an inference of exclusion. Nonetheless, even if there were a more obvious proximate cause -- such as your dog having a peptic ulcer and barfing on the floor -- that would not rule out the efficient cause of a divine act. The identity of the divine actor, if any, would hinge upon the conversation and premises 2 and 4 above.

My point here was that there MIGHT BE at least one circumstance in which it is a reasonable conclusion that an occurrence had a divine cause (SIP). This is to counter your statement that under no circumstances would you infer a divine cause (SEP). I was not and am not attempting to prove that the Christian God would be proven to exist if there were blood on your floor one morning.
Do you agree with my statement: "That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true."? IOW could you use faith to determine if any statement is true? For example, could you use faith to determine if white people are more intelligent than black people?
Arrr.
Faith is not how you "know" something. Faith is what you place in something that you know.
But that knowledge may be false, correct? You could place your faith in something that you know is true (whites are more intelligent than blacks for example) and later after examining the evidence against it, find out that you were wrong.
And this is where faith is the substance, the <Gk. sub(beneath)+stare(to lie) "thing which lies beneath" my hope. If I misplace my faith -- for example, if I believe in a chair that is too fragile or a bridge that is too weak, then I will not see my hope fulfilled -- my hope of resting my butt on the chair or of crossing the bridge.

Hope here being a "reasonable expectation of a positive future event."

Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. If the object of one's faith is worthy of it, we call that object "faithful."
I know that the bridge will hold me up. I have faith in it. I act on my faith by crossing the bridge. I hear it creak when I step on it. But I know it is strong and has enough strength for me. So my faith is the substance, the underlayment, of my hope (crossing the bridge).
So what happens if you get 3/4 along the bridge and it collapses, sending you into the water? You swim to the edge and walk 10 miles and you find a very similar bridge that has crocodiles swimming under it. Would using faith alone be a good mechanism for crossing those types of bridges safely?
My faith needs to be reasonably placed. I need a basis for my faith, which is my knowledge. I know that a beam of a certain size will support a bridge of a certain girth undergoing a load of a certain weight. That's all maths, and I can know from the answer if I can place my faith in that bridge.

I can't see the math that tells me the bridge is strong enough; I have faith in my knowledge that these materials with this load will stand up to the purpose. Faith underlies my action (crossing the bridge and taunting the crocs) just as the beams and the maths used by the engineer underlie the bridge itself. I don't "know by faith." I act in faith and through faith based on the knowledge that underlies that faith.
Finally, is there any position that you couldn't hold, based on faith alone?
I don't hold positions based on faith alone. My faith is supported by my reason and by my experience.

I know, I know. You've got a Mormon client/friend who tells you that he "knows by faith" that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I can tell you here and now, he's misusing the words "know" and "faith."

We Christians don't "know by faith" that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. We have faith in the reasonable inference that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. That reasonable inference is based on what we know (or reasonably infer that we know).
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am

SEG wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:34 am
SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:36 pm
So why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?

Oh I see now! It was a DIVINE leader and not an EARTHLY leader that decrees it right to kill defenceless babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and animals. Being divine, that leader has every right to commit all the atrocities he wants because he created all life. Is that how your morality works?
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:34 am
You're conflating two issues here.

Issue 1: Earthly leaders, whom we are told to respect and to honor: Yes, we must (in general) keep the law, just as a soldier under the Geneva Convention must, in general, follow the orders of his commander. But in the specific case where an order violates what we know to be good and righteous, we have a duty to disobey that order.
So ...why do you defend God's soldiers in the genocide of the Canaanites and Amalekites?
See issue 2, below...
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:34 am
You, in Oz, have never had a Civil Disobedience movement that I know of. Here, we've had and we have many. some of them have been righteous, as for example the campaign for Civil Rights of the 1950s and 1960s. Others are not matters of principle at all, but matters of simple defiance to authority ("Occupy Wall Street!").

In Exodus 1, the women defied Pharaoh as a matter of principle, and they were rewarded. Also in Daniel -- Daniel chose to remain kosher; Azariah, Hananiah and Mishael chose not to worship the idol; Daniel chose to continue praying. In each case keeping divine ordinances defied earthly law as a matter of principle. And in each case they were rewarded. &c.

Paul gives us a general rule: Being a Christian is not an excuse to ignore the law. But when the law is ungodly, then we can hold to the higher law.
How do you know when the law is ungodly, as your god is inconsistent with his own and human morals?
... See issue two, below (you keep conflating these issues) ...
Issue 2: You project earthly law onto God, and you suppose first that there can be a god who is not the basis of moral law -- a contradiction in terms.
I would expect that your god should be AT LEAST as moral as you and I, but in the Bible stories he has done what we would never do as caring, responsible people do. If there is a god that has chosen his own nature to be all benevolent, he could still derive his morals from somewhere else.
I might expect square circles and sticks that have only one end. But neither of those can exist. They are contradictions in terms.

If you set as your premises contradictions in terms then your results will be nonsense. I can only lead you to logic; I cannot make you its master.
Then you demand that I resolve this contradiction that you've created. You see, if there is no God, then it is only your opinion that the things that happened to the Canaanites and Amalekites was evil.
If there are no gods, we can go to simple definitions that most humans could all identify with:

Bad = Something that causes unnecessary suffering and diminishes well being.
That's just your opinion, in that case. And as such, you might also opine that the moon is made of green cheese. Much good may it do you.

And it leaves questions like what is suffering, what is unnecessary, &c.
Good = Something that is helpful for the flourishing of humanity, causes no harm to yourself, others or the environment and minimises pain and suffering.
Again, that's your opinion in that case, and again, there's a lot of wiggle room in there.
They are consistent with our earthly laws and so we can dispense with the imagined opinions of made up deities.
And once you do that you have nothing but your opinions.
I'm not responsible for your opinions.
No, but you are responsible to earthly laws and ethics.
Says who?
I don't know how humans could possibly be responsible for the laws of deities that aren't living with our problems.
So... if a Deity were to incarnate himself, live among men for, say 33 years, and then get executed as a criminal, He might then understand some of our problems, and be well-suited to discuss them with us?

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to imply... :popcorn:
You only assign responsibility to children once they understand the implications and intent of moral instructions. How could humans be responsible for the whims of gods that they don't fully understand?
Wait; who doesn't understand what? A moment ago, it was God who didn't understand, and now it's us?

And what do you mean that we don't understand? You're the one saying that we know what the simple definitions of Good and Evil are... you defined them above ... so how can you say that we don't understand?

"He has shown you, Oh Man, what is good, and what YHWH requires of thee: But to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly before God." So what do you mean that we don't fully understand? What's there not to understand?
And that ignores that they were baby-roasting pagans, and richly deserved twice as bad as what befell them...
Except that babies, toddlers and animals didn't deserve zip, but were slaughtered without good reasons. Yet you want to slaughter them twice!
We've discussed the alternatives. Do you now believe that one of the others would have been better? Starvation due to a teat shortage, perhaps?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:08 pm

Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I've noticed that if you say "There's no reason to assume a god" and then I point out a case in which such an assumption might be reasonable, you immediately jump to "Well, that doesn't mean that it's your god."

That, SEG, is something we refer to as "Moving the Goal Posts."

In the case of blood in the kitchen, if you had had such a dream, and then found such blood, and formed that inference, one would logically assume that the god who had answered would be the god with whom you had spoken in the dream. That is, either it was part of the same conversation, or else it was unrelated. That it was a third-party god would be an unreasonable assumption.
SEG wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:11 pm
Well how do you know that the god that spoke to you in a dream was your particular god? ... IOW how do you identify that it was your god speaking to you in the dream and not one pretending to be him?
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
Alright, let's take it from the beginning. If
1. you had a dream in which you dreamed that you were conversing with a deity, and
2. you asked that deity both his name and
3. how you might know that the dream was a vision and not merely undigested pepperoni, and
4. that deity, whose name was given in premise 2 (YHWH, Aristotle, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Sir Edmund Hillary... Whoever you were conversing with) said to you, "I, Sir Edmund Hillary [or whomever], will prove to you that I am a deity, by causing there to be blood on the floor of your kitchen when you awaken," and
5. When you awakened and went into the kitchen, there was blood on the floor of the kitchen,
Who's moving the goalposts now? It started off with
If you had dreamed the night before that God spoke to you, and said, "What sign should I give you that I am God?" and you, in your dream responded, "Cover my kitchen floor in blood,...
You didn't ask the deity for his name, you assumed it was your god and not some other god pretending to be him! Do you usually ask your god his name, rank and serial number?
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
Nonetheless, even if there were a more obvious proximate cause -- such as your dog having a peptic ulcer and barfing on the floor -- that would not rule out the efficient cause of a divine act. The identity of the divine actor, if any, would hinge upon the conversation and premises 2 and 4 above.

My point here was that there MIGHT BE at least one circumstance in which it is a reasonable conclusion that an occurrence had a divine cause (SIP). This is to counter your statement that under no circumstances would you infer a divine cause (SEP). I was not and am not attempting to prove that the Christian God would be proven to exist if there were blood on your floor one morning.
No, just that you automatically jump to a divine cause. I won't labour the point though.
SEG wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:23 am
Do you agree with my statement: "That's why faith is such a poor mechanism for working out if something is true."? IOW could you use faith to determine if any statement is true? For example, could you use faith to determine if white people are more intelligent than black people?
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
Arrr.
Faith is not how you "know" something. Faith is what you place in something that you know.
But that knowledge may be false, correct? You could place your faith in something that you know is true (whites are more intelligent than blacks for example) and later after examining the evidence against it, find out that you were wrong.
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
And this is where faith is the substance, the <Gk. sub(beneath)+stare(to lie) "thing which lies beneath" my hope. If I misplace my faith -- for example, if I believe in a chair that is too fragile or a bridge that is too weak, then I will not see my hope fulfilled -- my hope of resting my butt on the chair or of crossing the bridge.

Hope here being a "reasonable expectation of a positive future event."
So your faith in God is stipulated by those same reservations? Or do you rely upon faith alone? You can't have it both ways.
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
Faith is only as good as the object of one's faith. If the object of one's faith is worthy of it, we call that object "faithful."
Well how do you know that God is worthy of it and Christianity is true based on faith? What reservations do you have on God existing and Christianity being true?
I know that the bridge will hold me up. I have faith in it. I act on my faith by crossing the bridge. I hear it creak when I step on it. But I know it is strong and has enough strength for me. So my faith is the substance, the underlayment, of my hope (crossing the bridge).
So what happens if you get 3/4 along the bridge and it collapses, sending you into the water? You swim to the edge and walk 10 miles and you find a very similar bridge that has crocodiles swimming under it. Would using faith alone be a good mechanism for crossing those types of bridges safely?
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
My faith needs to be reasonably placed. I need a basis for my faith, which is my knowledge. I know that a beam of a certain size will support a bridge of a certain girth undergoing a load of a certain weight. That's all maths, and I can know from the answer if I can place my faith in that bridge.

I can't see the math that tells me the bridge is strong enough; I have faith in my knowledge that these materials with this load will stand up to the purpose. Faith underlies my action (crossing the bridge and taunting the crocs) just as the beams and the maths used by the engineer underlie the bridge itself. I don't "know by faith." I act in faith and through faith based on the knowledge that underlies that faith.
Which means that your faith doesn't stand alone and needs to be supported by the knowledge that underlies that faith. IOW your faith is conditional, correct?
Finally, is there any position that you couldn't hold, based on faith alone?
Og3 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:44 pm
I don't hold positions based on faith alone. My faith is supported by my reason and by my experience.
Ok, so now we know for sure that your faith in God comes with conditions that you attach to it, which includes reason. Bravo! So what are your reasons in believing God exists? Further, if you could hold a faith based position that God exists, you could also hold a faith based position that God does not exist? Providing of course, that you have conditions in place for both positions?
I know, I know. You've got a Mormon client/friend who tells you that he "knows by faith" that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I can tell you here and now, he's misusing the words "know" and "faith."
Some people say that faith is the excuse that people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason. I agree.
We Christians don't "know by faith" that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. We have faith in the reasonable inference that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God. That reasonable inference is based on what we know (or reasonably infer that we know).
...and if it could be proven that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus (and it can't btw, but it's very probable that it didn't), would that sway your faith, or would you start calling him Jesus of Somewhere Else?
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.

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

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:58 pm

Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
I'm not responsible for your opinions.
No, but you are responsible to earthly laws and ethics.
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
Says who?
Our society, just like the societies of individual sentient species. How would you describe the morals of a dog for example?
SEG wrote:] I don't know how humans could possibly be responsible for the laws of deities that aren't living with our problems.
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
So... if a Deity were to incarnate himself, live among men for, say 33 years, and then get executed as a criminal, He might then understand some of our problems, and be well-suited to discuss them with us?
Not as a stilted mythical character that was never a teenager, never dated, never married and never had kids. He also never laughed or had a sense of humour. His resume sucked as a councillor and he had the personality of an undertaker.
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to imply... :popcorn:
No, I meant real people can only understand the issues of other real people. How would your Jesus emphasise with a homosexual couple with kids? Or with a teenage girl getting bullied online?
You only assign responsibility to children once they understand the implications and intent of moral instructions. How could humans be responsible for the whims of gods that they don't fully understand?
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
Wait; who doesn't understand what? A moment ago, it was God who didn't understand, and now it's us?
I meant the whims and opinions of your god who makes up his own morals that he presumably got from somewhere else if they are truly objective.
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
And what do you mean that we don't understand? You're the one saying that we know what the simple definitions of Good and Evil are... you defined them above ... so how can you say that we don't understand?
I didn't say that we know what the simple definitions of Good and Evil are, I said, "Why not have simple definitions that most humans could all identify with..."
"He has shown you, Oh Man, what is good, and what YHWH requires of thee: But to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly before God." So what do you mean that we don't fully understand? What's there not to understand?
His whims and opinions, they aren't fully defined. In fact they are all over the place and contradictory. If you want examples I can throw you a huge slab of text, but you know what I mean.
And that ignores that they were baby-roasting pagans, and richly deserved twice as bad as what befell them...
Except that babies, toddlers and animals didn't deserve zip, but were slaughtered without good reasons. Yet you want to slaughter them twice!
Og3 wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:13 am
We've discussed the alternatives. Do you now believe that one of the others would have been better? Starvation due to a teat shortage, perhaps?
No, do what civilised non-divine driven nations do, show compassion and empathy for prisoners of war (especially kids and babies) and innocent animals.
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: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:03 pm

I will have to trust that later readers will sort out the point re: blood on the kitchen floor. I am not going to get bogged down on it.
SEG wrote:Well how do you know that God is worthy of it and Christianity is true based on faith? What reservations do you have on God existing and Christianity being true?
Show me the bones of Jesus Christ and I'll become an atheist. That's all it takes.

And the Romans could have done that in 33 AD, and Christianity would never have gotten started. Or the Jewish leaders. Or in 34, 35, 36, etc. right up to the Jewish Wars of 62-70 AD that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. But they didn't, and that's a very significant omission. Not itself conclusive, but significant and suggestive.

Have I had reservations about my faith? Yes. In fact, I have told you how, in 1985, I put my faith under critical scrutiny, and weighed it against science -- I was fresh out of that Naval Nuclear Power School, so I knew me some science! -- and I weighed it against logic -- I didn't read Wesley Salmon's _Logic_ just because I liked the title. I read apologetics, and I read atheists. And the sum total... Was that Christianity was perfectly reasonable. So I reasoned that if it were reasonable, God would confirm to me that it was true. So I prayed for Him, if He were real, to confirm His presence.

This is the equivalent, SEG, of going down on the banks under the bridge and looking at the beams. Chucking a few rocks at the supports to see if they quiver, or worse, take damage. stomping the ends of the planks to listen for that hollow sound.

I found that the Christian faith was solid and sturdy. I found that I was not the first person to come down under the bridge and check the beams. When I read Bertrand Russell, it was thin and whiny and fragile and didn't even come to a proper conclusion. But when I read C.S. Lewis, he made sense. He drew solid logical conclusions, didn't overstep, and connected all his dots. Two intelligent men, writing books on the same subject from opposite sides. One is all snark and no logic, and the other is humble logic that rings true. I had to weigh in with Lewis.

A year or so later -- by then I'd made up my mind -- I found Tolstoy's _Confession_. You might find it under the title _My Confession_. small book, not nearly as well known as War and Peace. But reading it I say him describe de-conversions, including his own. They were all weak excuses. none of them were reasoned out. He simply stopped believing when someone told him that there was no god. He talked about another man who stopped believing when his brother saw him pray, said, "Oh, you still do that?"

But then he talked about trying to reason out the meaning of life, and his equations kept coming back to 0=0 or X=X. That, by the way, is why I can always trip you up on morality: Your moral platitudes always come back to "I like my morals because I like my morals." So when you try to make your personal preferences mean something more than that, you're always cheating, and all I have to do is bring you back to where you started: 0=0.

Tolstoy reasoned that if life had any meaning, then something was missing from his equations. There was some factor he was missing. And he eventually came to the conclusion that the only way the equation would not come back to an identity (a meaningless 0 = 0) was if there were an infinite factor. I read that -- after I had already reached that conclusion by my own reasoning, mind you -- and I realized the truth of it. It confirmed my prior reasoning. You could say that God used Tolstoy (and before Him Lewis, and Isaiah, and David of Jerusalem, and Franz Kafka, etc.) to confirm to me that He was real. My reason, led by God, underlies my faith.

Now when I was a child, yes, my faith was simply this: I have been told of God, and I trust those who told me, therefore I believe. But now I have a solid faith built on my own reason, and confirmed in the reason of men like Lewis, and Tolstoy, and Solomon. Besides this, and neither superior nor inferior to it, is my experience. I have had experiences in my life that further convince me of God. I see those experiences, and acknowledging that there exist such things as confirmation biases and coincidences, I weigh them against reason, and against the experiences of other people. During the industrial revolution in England, there was a man from Bristol named George Mueller; if you were inclined towards studies in history, you would be intrigued by his experiences with respect to God. His experiences as recorded are consistent with and ring true with my own experiences.

And I have no ceased to study the question and to face the arguments against it. You see that I have not backed down from you, nor flinched when you scoff and ridicule. You have no argument that can frighten me: I've faced the best and most difficult arguments, and I've found the flaw in every one of them. Poor reason, poor argument: From Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins, it's all scoffing and no substance. Even you, SEG, when I point out your flaws of logic, you skip to another track and attack from a new angle. For the atheists, it's about winning the argument, not about finding the truth.

I challenge you, SEG, to do as I have done. Clear your mind of your biases, and make yourself as neutral as you can be. It's tough, but with some reading in Logic, I have faith that you'll get there. Then start weighing the sources. Put Russell alongside Lewis, and see which one wins. Let the facts decide it, and don't give in to your bias. Mere Christianity versus Why I Am Not A Christian. Which one is the proud scoffer, and which the humble logician? Tell me honestly. Then move on. Tolstoy and Kafka, let's say. Both men tormented to the point of suicide by the meaning of life; one surrendering to its hopelessness and the other finding the one bridge between the finite and the infinite. You tell me which is shrill and demanding; and which is reasoned and repentant. Tell me honestly. Then move on.

It will take a brave man to do it, and I can name at least a couple of names on this board not brave enough to do it. But you're no coward. You've faced peril bravely and unflinchingly. So this ought not to scare you either. Are you up for it?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply