Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[Ninar]

I thought this was another excellent and thought-provoking podcast. Great job, Emery. The sound quality was great. I love this podcast and wish I had more time to hang out on the forum. Please bring Jesse back for more debates and discussion. It is nice to hear good, articulate discussion on both the atheist and Christian sides of the fence.

[Emery]

Thanks Ninar, welcome. And welcome to Fonz and Matt, and anyone else I might have missed. It's sometimes hard to keep up with the forum whilst learning to chase ambulances. But if any of you get hit by a car while in Oregon, call me.

Fonz, I think you mentioned that it takes as much faith to believe there is no God, as it does to believe that there is one. Neither can ultimately be proven.

As an atheist, however, my claim is not so much that there is no God at all. I can only be agnostic about that, since I will never encounter all possible definitions of God. But I do claim to be atheistic toward the Christian definition of God. So if that is a leap of faith atheists have not adequately supported (since we can't prove the Christian god doesn't exist), would you consider your similar lack of faith in other gods (such as Zeus or Thor) likewise insupportable?

Incidentally, we both disbelieve in Thor. How are we to legitimize that disbelief?

[Matt]

Emery,

See my posts above for an approach to answering that question.

(Addendum: See also the Inerrancy thread in the General Discussion boards.)

[spongebob]

So, does God need the supernatural to "prove" his existence? Yes and no. No, because people inherently believe in "god"--if they don't it is because they have chosen a different path for moral reasons. Yes, because the question that lingers is "Which God?" Is YHWH the true god? Is Baal? Zeus? In that sense, God may have a responsibility to prove his superiority to other would-be deities, and He has done so in three ways: (1) the miracles of the Hebrew Bible, especially in delivering Israel from Egypt and settling her into Canaan, (2) the resurrection of Jesus, and (3) the return of Jesus at which time God would bring history to consummation.

These arguments are simply not adequate, matt. Is it my fault for not believing in magical stories when every single thing in my whole life tells me magic does not exist in this universe? As for #3, call me funny but it seems strange to call this evidence since it hasn't even happened yet.

I stand by Emery's position, which is very, very strong. So far, no christian has adequately handled this question. Lot's have tried, though. Wormy Wonders did his best...and failed. I think the only reasonable response is that of pluralism, that all incarnations of god are, in fact, god, and we just get into arguments about which one is valid and which one is not.

[Emery]

Hi Matt. I think Sponge has quoted the pertinent part of your argument?

If so, then what is the criteria for "superiority?" How do you arrive at it? For example, maybe Yahweh kicked more butt than all the other gods. But why does that make him superior? What if it's the god that can persuade without resorting to violence that is the truly superior one?

[Matt]

These arguments are simply not adequate, matt. Is it my fault for not believing in magical stories when every single thing in my whole life tells me magic does not exist in this universe?

That's kind of the nature of miracles, isn't it? If they were commonplace, they wouldn't be much proof of anything.

As for #3, call me funny but it seems strange to call this evidence since it hasn't even happened yet.

Right. That will be the final "proof." I don't think we can prove God now. After #3 happens, we will be able to.

I stand by Emery's position, which is very, very strong. So far, no christian has adequately handled this question. Lot's have tried, though. Wormy Wonders did his best...and failed. I think the only reasonable response is that of pluralism, that all incarnations of god are, in fact, god, and we just get into arguments about which one is valid and which one is not.

That's kind of the position I am advocating.

All religions have a legitimate claim that their god is, in fact, the true god. (Christians claim that YHWH is the true god.) That doesn't mean that all gods are created equal--a cursory look at the religions reveals that they are saying very different things about god.

The big question is: Which religion's god has made the best case that he is in fact the true god. I argue that the resurrection of Jesus makes a good case for YHWH.

[Matt]

Hi Matt. I think Sponge has quoted the pertinent part of your argument?

If so, then what is the criteria for "superiority?" How do you arrive at it? For example, maybe Yahweh kicked more butt than all the other gods. But why does that make him superior? What if it's the god that can persuade without resorting to violence that is the truly superior one?

No. Coherence is the criteria for "superiority." The extent to which a religion's claims cohere to reality is the extent to which a religion is "true." This may or may not involve the kicking of another deity's butt.

In YHWH's case, He claims to be the superior deity and that no other deity compares to Him. If He's going to make that claim, He better back it up. Thus you have the Exodus in which YHWH shows superiority to the Egyptian pantheon and the various contests between YHWH's prophets and those of Baal. (A religion like Hinduism that does not claim exclusive deity of any particular god would not have the same burden of proof.)

IOW, if a religion claims its god can do something, then the extent to which its god can do that thing is the extent to which the religion is "true." (Perhaps there are multiple "true" religions, but the major religions all claim that there is not.) In Christianity's case, YHWH claims to be able to put an end to sin and death and to establish His kingdom on earth. If He can do that, He's made his case that He is the true god. But, as Spongebob pointed out, that hasn't happened yet. So YHWH hasn't "proven" His case yet.

But has He made other claims and done other things to suggest that He will be able to put an end to sin and death and usher in his kingdom? Yes--the resurrection of Jesus being the major one. If the resurrection is true, then YHWH has made a good case that He is the true god, a case that He will settle beyond a reasonable doubt in the (near?) future. Make sense?

[spongebob]

That's kind of the nature of miracles, isn't it? If they were commonplace, they wouldn't be much proof of anything.

Gee, matt. I'm sorry, but special pleading just isn't convincing. "Oh, no, you don't understand how my magic works....it only works on Tuesdays when the moon is..."

Right. That will be the final "proof." I don't think we can prove God now. After #3 happens, we will be able to.

OK, till then I reserve the right to remain skeptical. Next?

I stand by Emery's position, which is very, very strong. So far, no christian has adequately handled this question. Lot's have tried, though. Wormy Wonders did his best...and failed. I think the only reasonable response is that of pluralism, that all incarnations of god are, in fact, god, and we just get into arguments about which one is valid and which one is not.

That's kind of the position I am advocating.

Oh, well that's kind of cool.

All religions have a legitimate claim that their god is, in fact, the true god. (Christians claim that YHWH is the true god.) That doesn't mean that all gods are created equal--a cursory look at the religions reveals that they are saying very different things about god.

OK, but now you're confusing me. Most of the "gods" claim not just superiority, but absolution. YHWH certainly does. That's kind of different from what I'm asking and different from what you seem to be saying. If they are saying "different" things about god, then one of them is saying the others are lying. Something doesn't add up.

The big question is: Which religion's god has made the best case that he is in fact the true god. I argue that the resurrection of Jesus makes a good case for YHWH.

Now you are being contradictory. If all gods are in fact part of the whole god, then why are they competing? That makes no sense at all. I could accept that they are all images of god trying to communicate valuable information to humans, but humans just keep misunderstanding the message. But to claim that one is "better" than the rest just goes right back to the jealousy of the Jesus god, which claims a negation of all gods, who supposedly had valid things to say in the past. And this one that is "better" keeps telling his flock that followers of those other gods don't qualify for the goodies at recess. Not buying it.

[Mr. Sluagh]

Matt--

Why do trust YHVH so much just because he pulled a fairly cool (although not exactly earth-shattering) miracle and was able to stick up for his people? Much greater miracles have been attributed to other deities. Compared to most of them, the resurrection is relatively well-documented, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why must only one of the gods be the "true" God? You can make first cause/prime-mover/intelligent designer arguments for a deistic God, but why must you identify that God with any of these mysterious aliens who go around performing occasional miracles while taking credit for natural phenomena and claiming that they could do even more if they wanted to? YHVH appears to be an extremely successful god who has pulled a massive coup against the world's other deities, thereby gaining an unprecedented number of worshipers*. Of course he wants you to think he's all-powerful; that helps demoralize his competition. And all he has to do to convince people is resurrect one rabbi!

*Who knows why gods need worshipers, but apparently they all do. Maybe they feed on faith through some kind of psychic vampirism. The Olympians were always jonesing for smoke from sacrifices, but they didn't eat smoke; they ate mana. Is smoke a drug for gods? YHVH apparently doesn't need it anymore. Has he quit? Perhaps smoke was just a visual indicator of how much faith the Olympians were absorbing that they used when bragging to each other. YHVH now has other ways of evaluating people's loyalty, and doesn't need to brag. Or maybe they don't feed on faith, they just want influence in the world. That's right, YHVH is trying to end this drama permanently, burn everyone who opposes him, and establish his kingdom on Earth. Oh well, it would probably all make sense if I was a god.

See what happens when you try to apply actual logic to religion?

[JustJim]

...but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If that's really true, then atheists will have to stop citing "lack of evidence" as their reason for saying there is no God, since lack of evidence of God's existence would not be evidence that God does not exist. They'd have to cite other reasons for denying God's existence. No?

Jim

[Emery]

...but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If that's really true, then atheists will have to stop citing "lack of evidence" as their reason for saying there is no God, since lack of evidence of God's existence would not be evidence that God does not exist. They'd have to cite other reasons for denying God's existence. No?

Jim

Lack of evidence itself could be the evidence. So seeing no butter in the fridge could lead to the logical conclusion that you're out of butter.

[Emery]

Hi Matt. I get your argument, but it is highly speculative (that any of those claims were indeed made by God, and that they occurred as advertised). But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Again, the question remains: what if a truly powerful God stays hidden? What if "showing off" for the humans is not a sign of power, but of weakness, thus proving that you are not the one true God, but one of these minor poser deities?

You understand what I'm saying? Perhaps according to the one-upmanship criteria that humans value, such a god would seem powerful. But who knows if that's the criterion of power for gods?

[JustJim]

Lack of evidence itself could be the evidence. So seeing no butter in the fridge could lead to the logical conclusion that you're out of butter.

Exactly. That's why I challenged the adage. As Carl Sagan said about the invisible dragon in his garage, the "lack of evidence" doesn't prove there is no dragon there; however, it begs the question of what the difference is between an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable, incorporeal dragon and no dragon at all.

Of course, we'd have to keep in mind there might be some butter at the supermarket on the corner. Or in our neighbor's fridge. Or, perhaps, that there's some invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable, incorporeal butter right here in our own fridge! (But I wouldn't want to try to spread it on my biscuits!)

Jim

[Mr. Sluagh]

Lack of evidence itself could be the evidence. So seeing no butter in the fridge could lead to the logical conclusion that you're out of butter.

Exactly. That's why I challenged the adage. As Carl Sagan said about the invisible dragon in his garage, the "lack of evidence" doesn't prove there is no dragon there; however, it begs the question of what the difference is between an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable, incorporeal dragon and no dragon at all.

Of course, we'd have to keep in mind there might be some butter at the supermarket on the corner. Or in our neighbor's fridge. Or, perhaps, that there's some invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable, incorporeal butter right here in our own fridge! (But I wouldn't want to try to spread it on my biscuits!)

Jim

Ah, that's why the adage can also be reversed: evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. If you can go to your garage and do a dragon-check, and you don't find any dragons, you should take that as evidence of absence, not absence of evidence. Historical data is trickier because you can never go back and check the proverbial garages.

[Mr. Sluagh]

My point is, even if I could find powerful enough evidence of one miracle to show that miracles are possible and send me back to square one in my understanding of physics, that would prove less than nothing. All it would do is open up several worlds of bewildering possibilities.

(If you'd grown up on Neil Gaiman, you'd think like this, too.)