The Simple Explanation That Resolves Christian Paradoxes
74
(paradox: exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.)
From the time a weary scribe made the first changes that altered a key meaning in the text while hand-copying a gospel manuscript to later eras when philosophers pondered the apparent contradictions between the nature of reality and the teachings of religious thought concerning the nature of god, Christians have been trying to sort out and explain the paradoxes of Christian theology. The trouble that all Christian philosophers fall prey to is the same condition that affects us all, a totally human psychological process: confirmation bias.
Christians do not believe in Jesus or God because of successful philosophical arguments. They believe for a myriad of personal reasons - they were raised Christian, they have some psychological need that Christianity fulfills, they experienced inner sensations they attributed to God and thus believe due to those feelings - all of these are reasons people believe. It is only post hoc that Christian apologists attempt with reasoning or logic to justify those beliefs. But confirmation bias interferes with any genuine examination they attempt of that belief system.
How confirmation bias interferes with genuine intellectual honesty can be no planer exemplified than by quoting noted Ph.D. and Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig and his book, Reasonable Faith: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.…We’ve already said that it’s the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role."
If one begins with the proposition that held beliefs are valid, regardless of reason and logic, then any investigation done is nothing more than a search for substantiation of that belief rather than a quest to determine reality. Confirmation bias then all but guarantees that any non-conforming information or idea will be either ignored or marginalized, while any confirming information or idea will be magnified into meaningfulness much greater than its proper share.
This, though, by the very nature of religious belief, is the method of appraising that belief that is used by its practitioners. The logic is circular from inception - my belief is right, therefore it cannot be proved wrong. That is why the great paradoxes of Christianity still remain - at least remain to all but the most slavish believers, the 6,000-year-old-earth-and-the-ark-was-real-type believers who burn themselves to death in standoffs with FBI and ATF officers in dusty Texas towns.
To the rest of the world these paradoxes remain - even to puzzled thinking Christians and other theists who have similar ideas in their respective religions. It is to these multitudes of real, thinking fellow humans I address myself, as one who was raised in an evangelical Christian home and therefore does not judge you as less than others for holding beliefs, as I am aware of how powerful - and for some, necessary - they can be. I don't ask you to make a choice now, after reading these ideas. I only ask you do what I know you can still do and do quite well: consider the ideas with a rational, reasonable frame of mind. Put aside belief temporarily, and look at the ideas as a non-biased agent of reason sent to earth to make the reasonable choice for all mankind.
Paradox #1:
One of the great paradoxes of almost all theism is the question of how can a God who is perfectly good allow evil. This question is most often restated as, why do bad things happen to good people? How can an angelic child die of cancer? How can a missionary who spent his or her life in developing countries, helping the poor, be chopped down by machete in attacks by competing tribes? If God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfectly good, how can he allow such atrocities to happen?
The apologistic answer - remember, this is the one who looks for reason to believe rather than looking for the most plausible explanation - has been mostly based on a philosophical argument of free will. The problem is that equally intelligent and dedicated debaters have offered profound and dynamic refutations of those arguments. Who to believe? Why do bad things happen to good people?
The answer is as simple as it is concise - bad things happen to good people because bad things happen to everyone in equal proportions. The best explanation for why this is so is equally simple: there is no God.
See, if you step back from the debate about free will, think about Occam's Razor, and apply simple reason it becomes apparent that the only reason that makes any real sense is that the bad things happen to everyone because no one is watching, no great spirit is there to keep score or care one way or another. There is no need to jump through mental hoops that would make Bart Conner swoon in a faint for the effort - we don't have to twist logic to make it appear that there just might be some magical, mythical, mysterious reason an all-great God being would allow all these bad things to happen.
Instead, it happens to all of us equally - because there is no God.
Paradox #2
Why doesn't an all-powerful, all-loving God perform objective miracles?
Believers are quick to point to near-death experiences, healings, and biblical miracles as evidence of their belief; however, what believers fail to ask is why all these miracles occur in self-limiting circumstances? Cancer is known to remit. When it remits for a Christian, it is the power of prayers that did it. This is simply an unreasonable claim. If miracles can positively evidence God, why are objective miracles omitted? If minimal faith can move mountains, why has no mountain ever been moved as an objective demonstration that God and his miracles are real? Why wouldn't a kind, loving, and all-powerful God on occasion regrow the arm of a worthy amputee? But this has never happened. Not once in over 2000 years.
Again, the best answer to why God has never once regrown an amputee's limb is because he can't - because there is no God.
Pardox #3
The last paradox we will examine is the bible itself. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why did he allow contraditions in holy written teachings? The bible is full of contradictions. Christian apologists have made an industry out of patching up holes in the stories in the bible to make it appear - if not plausible, at least possible (if you wish hard enough). There are many examples, but for simplicity sake the virgin birth will be used. If the virgin birth story is so critical to the theology of Christianity, to the idea of original sin and the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus, then why is the virgin birth only mentioned in two of the four gospels and not in the other two? The virgin birth is only claimed in Matthew and Luke. The books of John and Mark are mute on this subject. Keep in mind, when these books were written they were written as independent, stand-alone books. The authors had no idea they would be combined into one book centuries later. If the virgin birth was a key issue to the author of Luke, why was it left out of the book of John?
Now, the apologists will come up with all kinds of explanations - that God (all-knowing) knew these books would be later combined and so there was no need to tell the story more than twice - but then one must ask if that is so, then why would it need to be told more than once? If a supreme being were organizing the written books as if they would be eventually part of an anthology, why two stories of virgin births? Why not 1 or 3 or 4? And why is the virgin aspect doubted by many biblical scholars as a mistranslation of the Hebrew legend it arose from? The next question follows from the first. With so much doubt about its validity, why wouldn't God (all-powerful) simply will corrections to take place? Even a drunk editor would notice that Luke and Matthew disagree on where Jesus was born, once in a stable and once in a house - one would think God the all-powerful editor could have willed in a red-pen correction.
Do you begin to see the point? Sure, with an army of apologists it may be possible to connect the dots to at least make most of the contradictions in the bible an outside possibility, but why would an all-knowing, all-intelligent being create a book so warped and confusing that all this theoretical work has to be done to make it appear coherent? Would a God do that? Or does this look like man's work?
Again, the best answer, the answer that fits the facts is simple: God did not personally inspire the bible - because there is not a God to do so.
Conclusion
There you have it. Three of the more perplexing questions about Christian beliefs that if you step back from, look at with a critical eye, and are honest with yourself about become non-questions by the application of one single assumption: there is no God.
Without God, there is no puzzlement about why bad things happen to good people - bad things happen to everyone. There is no question of why amputees are not granted new limbs - there is no God to grant them. And there is no longer a question about why the bible is so inconsistent - because there was no God around to direct its writing.
It really is simple. I admit, though, for theists, in the case of belief in God, simple and easy are polar opposites. Good luck in your escape from the anti-rationalism that is religious belief. I understand how hard your task is, even if you are willing.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (6)
- Funny
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Wow. I love this quote: "If one begins with the proposition that held beliefs are valid, regardless of reason and logic, then any investigation done is nothing more than a search for substantiation of that belief rather than a quest to determine reality."
Pierre and Chasuk,
Thanks for taking the time to read and thanks for your comments.
We read it because you have an honest face. (lol)
Me? I was right here!
I can't get over the "personal relationship" with god. If one is so special that god actually speaks to them, why can't anyone else hear it? No one else is special enough?
Then there are those that actually speak FOR god. Really? Wow, they must be the speciallist of all!
The religionoids are using a different meaning of "reality" than we do. They are touchy on the issue of "seeing" God quite plainly, like it says in the Bible: a 50-cubit-high pillar of smoke by day, pillar of fire by night, what happened to that?! Isn't God "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" so would show up on Google Earth? We've taken satellite photos of every spot on Earth, and rather intrusive photos of every city street while we're at it! The religious seem to imply that they are somehow "more sinful" and "less pure" than ancient shepherds with 1/3 our lifespan, 1/10th of our education and 1/20th our cleanliness...It must be really masochistic to belong to a religious group because THAT'S what they're implying about "seeing God". They warm the pews week after week reading about amazing happenings that happened to some ancient dirt-eating shepherds but NOT to themselves!
Oh, but I guess we're supposed to "feel" God and not see him. Somehow, backwoods yokels "sense" God in a way scientists with their billion-dollar instruments can't? Scientists hold the MONOPOLY so far on proving and making plain invisible things to the rest of us: planets past Saturn, X-rays, the electron. What have religions proven and made plain? A big NOTHING, that's what! Forgive me for ranting, but this amorphous blob is a hub in the making!
(I can't get over the "personal relationship" with god)
Austinstar,
The "personal relationship" angle will become highly strained as soon as Christians realize the most difficult paradox of all: the Second Coming would mean an end to Nascar.
(The religionoids are using a different meaning of "reality" than we do.)
Pierre,
I agree that their "reality" is different. I have used the following before so I am repeating myself but I also think it is valid criticism: to posit an all-powerful god who created the universe out of nothing is an example of the proposition that "anything is possible".
The negation of that proposition would be "anything is not possible".
The trouble theists find themselves in is they want to pick and choose what is possible and what is not possible, but that resolves to nothing but personal opinion and violates their firmly held belief in an absolute truth. In order to consistently proclaim an absolute truth by way of an immaterial, all-powerful spirit-being, one must propose something outside of the natural is real. But if one thing outside known possibility can be real, then anything one can imagine must also be a possibility - an invisible elephant with mosquito-size wings that can fly must be as likely to be real as any god. Parallel lines must cross in the distance, just as they appear to do. A winged mule-like creature flew Muhammad to heaven and back. A corpse can be revitalized after three days of death and be restored to life. Water can be changed into wine and lead into gold. Witches' glances cause crop failures. Evil spirits cause disease.
One cannot pick and choose which of the above is possible and which is not possible - unless one chooses the negation, anything is not possible. If that is the position, then anything shown to be outside of natural possibility must be impossible - all of it - including the concept of god.
Therein lies reason and rational thinking.
That's right! Since so many UnSaved people are burned in Hell, the American Christians aren't going to feel at home in Heaven. For example, only TWO people know the exact formula for CocaCola. If they are both UnSaved, they both end up burned -- no more CocaCola. Same for many American staple products. Same for fashions, technological innovations. When 95% of your population gets destroyed, you don't have the same society 5% as large, you get HUGE GAPS in the products and services available. Heaven will be reduced to people wearing peasant robes and eating Biblical multi-grain bread instead of Wonder Bread. No Wonder Bread. No Skippy Peanut Butter. No Oscar Meyer weiners at lunch! All the people with the know-how to making these things -- dead, incinerated. Americans had better hope there IS no Rapture, no Heaven, for that is the end of their barbecues and SUV life. Heaven might be a good deal for the starving Ethiopian but it is a DISASTER for the members of the advanced countries. We've ALREADY ACHIEVED consumer heaven and if some insane god comes in casting most of us into Hell we're gonna lose it.
American Idol must be a drag for god - he always knows who the winner will be. But if he always knows, why did he not know Satan would rebel? And if he is omnipotent, and omniscient, why didn't he simply stop Satan from rebelling eons before the act?
Again, the simple answer is most likely correct: because there is no god.
It is God's will, because Jesus said so.
On a less sarcastic note, right on hub.
I routinely ask why it is that we as a species, so advanced in technology and education, hold on to such primitive conclusions of the meaning of life.
''When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.'' 1 Corinthians 13:11
Fight fire with fire! Booyah!
The reality of religionoids can not be based on causality, but even if not everything were possible, the Pope could be an agnostic and the Queen an atheist just going along with the myth to keep their jobs.
Just like Obama knows, questioning the official 9/11 myth could be very bad for business, the official irrationality has to be kept alive at all cost or the Vatican may fall along with British Royalty and the US Empire may go down the drain as well - all very much against the national interests of the United States ... :)
(I routinely ask why it is that we as a species, so advanced in technology and education, hold on to such primitive conclusions of the meaning of life)
Jaydeus,
I am still wondering how long it will be until the claim is made that because a mounted, singing largemouth bass only sings when a believer walks past it is a sign of miraculous intervention.
Thanks for your comment.
(the official irrationality has to be kept alive at all cost)
f_hruz,
Heaven forbid, as the ship-of-state-legend of American exceptionalism would founder on the rocks of reason if rationality replaced collective mythkeeping.
Thanks for your comment.
I've just suddenly realized something. If Jesus was actually made back alive after 3 days of being dead, when and how did he die the second time? Or did he just apparate away?
f_hruz, are you one of those 9/11 Truthers? That is as unscientific as creationism:
(Or did he just apparate away?)
Austinstar,
Perhaps he also used al-Buraq to fly to heaven, but unlike Muhammad he rented a triplex and stayed.
Well, I have to disagree, and it for personal reasons. No, I've never head God speak to me or anything paranormal in nature. But I do follow the the Bible as a way of life, and it's amazing how things work out for hen I am following God's Word, and how messed up they can be when not. You also need to understand dispensations, which means God deals with people differently in different times. He doesn't deal with us today the same way He dealt with Adam & Eve, or Abraham, or Israel in the past.
Paradox #1: You are on a date. She is the most beautiful girl you've ever seen. She's perfect in every way. Half way through the date, everything is going well, and you can barely understand why this perfect specimen of a female is out with you. Then she says it, she's only going out with you because this other hot guy will go out with her if she dates you, or she knows you are secret rich and she wants to be set up for life, or you're a plastic surgeon and she is hoping for free implants. Whatever the reason, she's with you for ulterior motives, and she really doesn't care for you.
Maybe that's good enough for you, but that's not good enough for God. He doesn't want you to come to Him because you want your business to succeed, your sickness to miraculously cure or whatever superficial reasons.
Paradox #2: God no longer has His followers doing miracles. Miracles were a sign that this person was of God. Before the Bible, people needed to know, else anyone could come along and spout off any little lie they wanted.
Also, what we see as weakness, or failure or frailty, God can make into strength. People who have gone through tragedies and come out the other side can use their wisdom to comfort and help others. God may have intended us to live perfect lives but sin changed all that. We can't seem to understand sin anymore than we can understand gravity. We don't know what sinless is, and trying to understand it would be like trying to explain to a crowd of first century Romans what radio waves are.
Paradox #3: The gospels are all accounts of Christ's life, each one showing different aspects, highlighting different sides of the Son. Why do some overlap and others don't? I don't know. Why does one say a rooster crowed while another says it crowed three times? I don't know. I would say that if all the gospels were identical, you'd be screaming conspiracy, and how obviously they were written by the same person. The fact that they are slightly different, you scream how inconsistent they are. You would disbelieve either way, and your disbelief probably has nothing to do with Bible consistency. It probably is some other deep rooted emotion.
I laughed at the comment about the pillar of fire and cloud. Yes, that happened something like 4000 years ago, so I doubt Google Earth would have been around. And yes, God doesn't change, but how He deals with us changes often it seems.
The Israelites were freed from bondage, fed, clothed and given just about anything they asked for and all they did was complain complain and complain some more. Yet, they had God infront of them. They could see Him daily and nightly, yet when Moses leaves them for a short time, they all built idols of gold and started worshiping them instead!
There is your paradox! How can a perfect being create such soddish ungrateful people? I had a friend tell me he would believe in God only if God would have a drink with him in a pub. He decided since it hasn't happened, God must not exist. My belief is, even if God did that, my friend wouldn't have believed and neither would you!
McGilwriter,
Thanks for the comment and for providing excellent examples of my point - all of your long-winded rationalizations of these paradoxes are unnecessary and the paradoxes can be resolved much more simply with with just 4 words: There is no god. Problems solved.
I would know God if he sat down and had a drink with me in a bar. Who wouldn't? It is you who cannot see the truth of this. There is no god to buy you that drink, which is why it never happens.
If the Israelites weren't satisfied with fake miracles and burning bushes, why should we be? Perhaps they recognized the con. Apparently, gold made them have a much better life than their "gods" did.
I don't drink, but if God bought me a drink, I would probably need it.
Austinstar,
Isn't it amazing how hard believers work to try to make sense out of their nonsense, and still fail. William Lane Craig is a believer, an apologist, and a very smart man, so I am sure he recognized the impossibility of rationalizing away all the incongruencies and so simply said that if faith conflicts with reason and evidence, then reason and evidence must take a back seat.
I said he was smart, but delusional beliefs can make an idiot out of anyone.
You are so right, Winston. And the believers also deny what they see with their own eyes. Why anyone would believe in an invisible deity that controls their very essence is beyond me. I guess that personal responsibility thing is just not politically correct anymore. Or it certainly isn't religiously correct. Why own up to the truth when the devil is such a handy excuse?
Winston, I think your no-God hypothesis seems to be winning out on all situations. The religious adhere to some bizarre belief that life will go best with them if they obey "God's commandments" from a book THEY read in American English, of unknown origin, ultimately written by the ancestors of greasy Middle Eastern Semites they are taught to hate and fear on the news but never make the connection with the events of the Bible (especially because of all those 19th-century color paintings in their Bibles portraying Abraham and Moses as if they were White people!) They would not dare buy a used car from a Holy Land resident if they met him in the flesh, but in an abstract sense they trust them to dictate their most basic code of ethics!
But they allow for the fact that evil men live better, richer lives than they do, with the "out" saying "the sun shines on the good man and the bad man alike". Somehow it gives twisted comfort to the mass of poor schmucks in the ghettoes of America, to believe in this Bible stuff or at lest cower when a minister goes by, believing there are unrealistic standards they can live by and their life will get better, at least the poor get a tin of beef stew once a month from a church-basement. But the systemic problem is that hundreds of thousands of people go to Sunday School and they are taken out of the lifelong learning in Reason, which is needed to understand how things run and how to run the world's institutions. They can't get good jobs, they fill the ghettos and become poor, but hey, at least they're RELIGIOUS! What's the use of studying anything, we're waiting for the Rapture! Meanwhile even the lowliest Chinese packs more actual studying in his childhood and gets into a manufacturing trade, and socks the pants off the Americans economically...and part of it is raw discipline but part of it is also jettisoning any religious belief. Oh, well, there's the sun shining on evil men as well as good, but it will all be better when God's heavenly hosts slip through NORAD and reassert Jesus' reign on Earth!
(Why anyone would believe in an invisible deity that controls their very essence is beyond me)
Austinstar,
From personal experience I can tell you it is much easier to see the delusion for what it is from outside than inside the belief - and I am quite certain that the not-so-subtle anger expressed in many Christian comments is simply a result of the fear of the feelings of cognitive dissonance that reason stirs.
(they obey "God's commandments" from a book THEY read in American English, of unknown origin, ultimately written by the ancestors of greasy Middle Eastern Semites they are taught to hate and fear on the news )
Pierre,
This is the reason I appreciate so much your unyielding attacks on ID proponents. The Discovery Institute and its ID branch hold no real interests in science or discovery - they are solely interested in power. Their ultimate goal is to establish a Christian theocracy in the U.S.
Sam Harris has it right - the enemy is delusional beliefs.
@AKA Winston: here's the thing, I've been hopped up on science fiction far more than the average mortal and what STRIKES me is that even conservative guys like Robert A. Heinlein were warning against Fundamentalist Christian theocracies. His short-story "If This Goes On..." was a brilliant condemnation of a hypothetical future American theocracy. A proud soldier in the new theocracy can't love the woman he wants, since she's promised to the leader's harem apparently, so he gradually links up with rebels.
And Margaret Atwood, a Canadian literary maven, writes kick-ass books when she turns her attention to science fiction. She wrote, as you may know, THE HANDMAID'S TALE, made into a movie also. We have heard of the Taliban but it is amusing to postulate on American versions of veiled, suppressed women, which was Atwood's main focus. In that book no one seems too happy with the new living arrangements, to say the least, and all it takes for the Fundies to curtail women's rights is to cancel all the bank-accounts and credit-cards coded with a "2".
But what do we do when dangerous fanaticism looms? Again your simple explanation curtails endless decades of pain and suffering: There REALLY is NO God! What a relief!! So how dare any humans speak as if they know how to run everyone else's lives. Limited governmental power and democracy and that constitutional freedoms stuff seems to be the way to go.
You knew I would have to show up eventually
Only one class of quibble:
Paradox 1: "Instead, it happens to all of us equally - because there is no God."
or because god wants it that way
Paradox 2: the best answer to why God has never once regrown an amputee's limb is because he can't - because there is no God.
or because he has chosen not to work that way
Paradox 3 God did not personally inspire the bible - because there is not a God to do so.
or god did not personally inspire the bible, period. Doesn't mean there isn't one. Just means the bible is wrong.
I think 1 and 2 are virtually the same. What appears to be the point (correct me if mistaken) is that a benevolent god should not allow suffering. That starts from a bias that any god should be benevolent. Clearly life has not demonstrated that suffering is a part of it, so if there is a god, the suffering is on purpose, unless god doesn't control the creation.
There are ample demonstrations why the bible (or any religion) cannot be the uncluttered word of god, but that does not demonstrate the absence of god. It only demonstrates that the bible is wrong.
quibbles only. As always I enjoy your writing.
cheers
sorry, typo alert
"Clearly life has not demonstrated that suffering is a part of it"
I meant to say that life HAS demonstrated that suffering is a part of it.
apologies
(I think 1 and 2 are virtually the same. What appears to be the point (correct me if mistaken) is that a benevolent god should not allow suffering.)
Anton,
I think you missed the title - Christian paradoxes. We could, from your viewpoint, also assume an evil god, and uncaring god, an autistic god, whatever.
The point of the article is that the omnipotent, omniscient loving god of Christianity requires voluminous amounts of rationalizations to come anywhere close to filling the holes between reality and assumptions.
But simply assuming no god eliminates the incongruities.
But consider this: even with your examples you must create a reasoning to define the actions of the god you posit.
Occam's razor is still better satisfied with the simple answer - there is nothing to posit.
Oh, yes, of course, you were referring to the christian god in which case I have no dispute with your reasoning. I leapt to the notion that I didn't think your reasoning eliminated any god, but that wasn't your position with the hub so I leapt in a different direction.
I do have a reasoning for the god I posit but it is longer than I think I can contain in a response (so I should get busy and write that hub), but you are correct, I haven't provided one here. My only issue was that I didn't think that,for example, demonstrating that the bible was wrong meant there was no god, but again, I didn't pay enough attention to title. If the bible is wrong, than god can not be as christians envision him.
And as for Occam's razor, "god did it" is pretty simple.
No, I'm not defending the 'god did it' statement, but I think the answer may be (Occam's razor notwithstanding) fairly complex.
Or maybe I just want it to be because I'm too lazy to look. hmmmm.
cheers
(And as for Occam's razor, "god did it" is pretty simple.)
Anton,
You are being tricked by illusion. "God did it" is not simple, at all, unless you are simply claiming an "I am clueless" meaning to that phrase.
To actually mean God did it requires an explanation of what God is, why he may have taken these actions, and how he accomplished that task.
That is a far cry on the Explain-O-Meter from "nothing miraculous occured".
As you may be able to tell from my own hubs, I am one who remains open-minded, though I can find reason and logic in Christianity:
Paradox 1: Who said that death was something bad? The Bible says that death is sweet for those who die in the Lord. And it really isn't death to Jesus; it's a reunion - a joyous one at that for the deceased. I have stories to support that (see my hub about "Do the Innocent Really Suffer?" That same hub shows how suffering is subdued in the innocent. Also, God warned Adam about the forbidden fruit. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised at the "suffering," which is a consequence of that original sin, and which also is there to help cleanse us (Something good, I'd say).
Paradox 2: Usually, if God wants to repair an amputated arm, he usually prevents it from happening in the first place. There are plenty of stories to support that, if you want them. Besides, look at the growth that has happened in survivors in the majority cases of amputations or other tragedies. But I disagree that there are no miracles: There are continuous miracles that happen these days. Ask for those stories as well. If he doesn't allow miracles profusely, it's because of one thing he mentioned: "Faith." He wants us to develop faith. You can't develop faith with blatant miracles. I say "blatant," because many miracles, including those Jesus did, can be explained away through one means or another.
Paradox 3: The reasoning for "faith" in the answer above can be part of the answer for this one. Also, since Jesus knew he was going to be sending the Holy Ghost, and since one mission-statement of the H.G. is to teach and testify of truth, then Jesus knew he didn't have to correct all the errors that came up.
I say "all," because there exists facts that suggest he DID correct some important misprints. Historians, Early Christian Fathers and Reformists are among some of my examples of this. If you want more, just ask me.
Oooh, I don't know if we want more of that. Winston is better at taking care of these philosophical conundrums. It just sounds like more Dark Ages Christian spew. "Reunited after death", that TOTALLY ignores what we know about the processes of putrefaction, where the carbon atoms in a high-value set of brain neurons that define your thoughts and your very personality are chewed by maggots and bacteria and become low-value carbon-dioxide gas, each molecule exactly the same as any other, then widely dissipated all over the Earth's atmosphere. That's totally irrecoverable, my friend. It is even beyond the power of this God to re-stitch things and make a person who thought like you again. Then Original Sin and other stuff, you just do go on, do you? But ignore me, I'm just a harlequin who pops up in this one now and again. AKA Winston will be talking to you soon.
In each of the Paradoxes it could also be concluded there is a GOD that DOES NOT intervene with man's affairs. A God that does not answer prayers, grow new limbs, or correct the Bible, might still exist. Albeit, this God would not fulfill the image of the God of Christianity or other Religions. Our measly intellect assumes GOD will intervene with affairs on Earth. I have no idea if there is a GOD any more than I can prove there is no GOD. But I must say, the GOD of the famous Religions is pretty well refuted by the paradoxes.
OK - The paradoxes refute a Christian GOD which is the TITLE.
Pierre, you should know what I meant: I have more STORIES to support my claims. By the way, would it bother you if I told you you were right about all that putrefaction business? Why mention all that anyway? I'm talking about the spiritual side of things, in case you didn't know.
You and Terry: Why did you ignore my arguments? I can't admit to anything you say, unless you address or refute what I said. Calling it "Dark Ages Christian Spew" is editorializing, not addressing what I said. And what I said, unless you can show otherwise, quie clearly dispells the notion that those three points are paradoxes.
Aka Winston,
Sorry for the repetition in above comment, I ran out of time before I could correct it.
Regards
PlanksandNails,
I disallowed your longer comment not because of your disagreement but simply because of the incessant posting of biblical scripture.
Scripture does not belong in the debate.
Feel free to disagree and comment with your own logic and opinions, as those types of posts only reenforce my contention that one must rationalize immensely to make the Christian god make any kind of sense at all.
P.S. If we had the ability I would have deleted the scriptures and let your comments stand. Too bad we cannot do that, though.
Sam,
You make my point beautifully. You must rationalize (meaning create an explanation for) each of these paradoxes, and I notice you had to use a significant amount of varied ideas.
I can explain and eliminate all three paradoxes with 4 simple words: there is no god.
(Also, God warned Adam about the forbidden fruit. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised at the "suffering," which is a consequence of that original sin)
Now, to let you know I did read your points, the claim that it isn't surprising we suffer because of god's warning to Adam in no way explains why an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god would allow suffering in the first place. If god has these three Christain attributes, then he is totally responsible for all evil being in the world - or else he did not have the power to stop it. Either way, the Christian concept fails.
(if God wants to repair an amputated arm, he usually prevents it from happening in the first place)
Sorry, Sam, but this is simply mumbo-jumbo. There is no reason to replace a non-amputated limb. Please. Does god select those who are to lose a limb and he wills the rest of us to keep ours? This is sophomoric reasoning.
You are smarter than that.
(I say "all," because there exists facts that suggest he DID correct some important misprints. Historians, Early Christian Fathers and Reformists )
Sam,
Your claim is that the altered copies are better respresentations than the originals?
This one doesn't even get a response. Too lame.
Finally, if you notice nothing you have said is anything but assertion of faith with no objective evidence to back it up. It is all opinion, based on your faith.
None of that is needed with a simple assumption: there is no god.
That explains it all.
There is NO GOD THAT INTERVENES IN THESE MATTERS. What about a GOD that simply observes and at death we move to a parallel Universe based on those Observations? Just a fanciful notion.. But I think all that has been established is that there is not an Intervening God. I am in accord with that notion as it seems Obvious.
Sam, there is no Spirit either! You can't claim there is anything beyond the material without presenting solid proof of that; we're not having it! It's an old trick to prop up an unsupported claim with yet ANOTHER unsupported claim, like those frat-boys who decide to "sit in a circle" on each other's knees. It may SEEM to work for a while but it's unstable. Give us some REAL proof. Again, it is ONLY scientists who have proven and made plain to all people the invisible things like X-rays or planets past Saturn. Religious people have NEVER managed that. You doubt a scientist at your peril (your cell-phone will stop working) but you can doubt a religionist all the live-long day because they are unconvincing and wrong.
Planks and Nails should show a better perspective than just preaching Bible quotes. An intelligent outsider, who doesn't fancy himself the Bride of Christ or Christ's Bitch or anything, would take the Bible given to him, skim ahead and exclaim, "Wait a minute! Donkeys can't talk! This book sucks!" And that should be the end of it. No sense in making a silly book the guide of your whole, single, short life.
(What about a GOD that simply observes)
Terry,
The only consistent rational god would be a pantheistic god, but then once you start positing attributes of this god you are back to the same problem of mysticism.
You can claim an uncaring god made up of all matter in the universe. But why bother? The instant someone says creation the onus is on them to explain how creation ex nihilo was accomplished.
Most people are insulted by the word irrational. But to me, irrational is simply a word of separation, a word that allows us to understand that some things are of reality and some things are imagined to possibly be of reality.
One can claim a god and creation ex nihilo. That is fine and there is nothing particularly wrong with that if that type of psychological crutch is needed. The problem is that this irrational explanation is then brought forward into reality when it is only imagined to be of reality. This is when wars start, when Inquisitions start, and when delusion overcomes reason, ushering in Dark Ages.
(You can't claim there is anything beyond the material without presenting solid proof of that; we're not having it!)
Pierre,
What continually amazes me is that folks like Sam and PlanksandNails are quite bright - but they are so caught up in the delusion of their theistic beliefs that their reasoning ability becomes twisted into half-baked rationalization pretzels that aren't real tasty.
Pierre - "Again, it is ONLY scientists who have proven and made plain to all people the invisible things like X-rays or planets past Saturn. Religious people have NEVER managed that. You doubt a scientist at your peril (your cell-phone will stop working) but you can doubt a religionist all the live-long day because they are unconvincing and wrong."
Love this quote and I'm stealing it. I know scientists that can make religionists literally disappear!
Austinstar, it's all in the exact wording. If you steal it make it clear that I'm saying religious people make claims of INVISIBLE things, but unlike scientists have never methodically proven them to anyone's satisfaction.
I think you said it well.
I did use and the person I used it on decided that it meant that scientists and religionists used to have the same frame of mind but only recently became separated. In other words, he claims that many scientists believe in God. Whatever.
As usual, Winston is correct - "What continually amazes me is that folks like Sam and PlanksandNails are quite bright - but they are so caught up in the delusion of their theistic beliefs that their reasoning ability becomes twisted into half-baked rationalization pretzels that aren't real tasty."
Even a religious scientist doesn't dwell on God to make any discoveries. It will not give him new insight any more than any other magical thinking. I've heard of some scientists getting inspirations from dreams, though, like the story of how Kekulé determined the structure of the benzene ring from the puzzling proportions of C6H6 that chemical analysis kept giving him. Being asleep gave him some respite from thoughts endlessly circling in his head, and he imagined the chains like snakes, biting their tails -- and the idea of the ring became clear.
Aristotle said "Eurêka!" (I found it!) He didn't say God found it for him.
(“One of the great paradoxes of almost all theism is the question of how can a God who is perfectly good allow evil.”)
I believe evil is what we do apart from God’s will. God has given us a choice to accept Him or reject Him. Since man’s nature is sinful, we reap the consequences of our selfish choices. Evil is a result of those choices. God is always good; evil is what we bring on ourselves by separating from Him (His love and will). According to God, we can only be good by His standards, by accepting Jesus Christ through faith.
If one honestly does not believe in God, then He has no yet proven Himself to you, but if you deny Him after being enlightened, then the consequences of rebellion to Him are then irrevocable.
Evil is opposition to God, but if one has no faith in God, the question is only answered or refuted by their individual belief system.
(“If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he perform objective miracles?”)
It is only through faith that one comes to the belief in God. Once one has faith in God, the objective miracles are His creation and the essence of who we are.
Without faith, the question is often opposed with scepticism, as God has not been proven yet.
(“If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why did he allow contradictions in holy written teachings?”)
God uses all things for His purposes including contradictions as we see them. The Scriptures do not prove God, but speaks of Him. We cannot fully fathom the mysteries of God, but He gives us enough to understand within our finite limitations of His spiritual nature today.
Yes, you may see this as half-baked dribble, if or until proven otherwise. Conviction, I believe is something mere man cannot do for himself. If God has not proven Himself to you, then I can understand where one is coming from an opposing or sceptical perspective, that it is a delusion. I am not a proponent of “blind faith”, but that reasoning and faith for the belief in God comes from the Holy Spirit before someone can make a decision that is not coercion. God knows the ones who need more subjective or evidential evidence to bring about faith. We are left to our free will to choose the path we want while we are still here.
First of all, folks, let's please get all our semantics right. Nobody can "prove" anything about a god. Someone
asked me for solid proof. Well, don't be a hypocrite, because you can't give me solid proof that there is NO
god. To make my point, I'll make you a promise: If you can prove there is no god, I'll give you a thousand
dollars.
Now, in your next comment, don't tell me I'm using that trite old useless trick again. I'm not trying to show
there is a god, nor am I trying to convince you of my belief system. My only purpose here is to refute your
claim that there is no god, based on you're reasoning.
In my answers, I'm using what the Bible teaches - not to teach you the Bible, but - to give you references or
sources for my ideas, something true writers usually do. If I didn't use the "manual" that describes my belief
system, and came up with things off the top of my head, then, yes, you could call my answers "mumbo-jumbo."
If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine. But it doesn't give you the license to accuse me of creating
"mumbo-jumbo."
And, BTW, your statement "I can explain and eliminate all three paradoxes with 4 simple words: there is no god"
is not based on scientific proof: it's an opinion. That's what I meant by "editorial" in one of my comments
above. Imagine what it looks like, me being asked for solid proof in the wake of such a statement as that.
You said I still haven't answered the question of why god would allow suffering in the first place." That's
your opinion. In my opinion I thought I gave quite a thorough answer. Besides, did you read the article I
mentioned on the innocent suffering? I invite you to read it and refute it. Then, I'll talk.
I said: "If God wants to repair an amputated arm, he usually prevents it from happening in the first place."
You said: "Sorry, Sam, but this is simply mumbo-jumbo." There's that term again! Why do you call it
mumbo-jumbo? Did I not tell you I can find stories to support that idea? Here's one: My father bought a
bus ticket with a seat number on it. A series of circumstances arose that caused him to miss the bus. Soon, the
bus departed, but a piece of a bridge fell on it. An investigation revealed that it completely crushed the seat
he would have been sitting on. My father concluded that God knew this would happen, but decided it wasn't his
time to either die or lose some type of function. Now, why didn't God let him die or lose an arm, and THEN
restore his life or the part? It was easier to prevent it in the first place. You will say it was a coincidence.
That's fine, and I don't blame you for thinking that. But after dozens of this type of thing happening, you start
wondering about the law of "chances." But - again - it doesn't matter if you don't believe what I'm saying: I'm
just showing why I think you're out of line by saying "God doesn't exist." You don't have to believe that claim,
either. But you can't fault me for believing what I believe for having so many such things happen in my life.
You asked, "Does god select those who are to lose a limb and he wills the rest of us to keep ours? This is
sophomoric reasoning." Dude, I'm not reasoning. I'm - again - just getting ideas from my canon, and from what
the Spirit has taught me. The Bible says that when the rapture happens, there will be two men working in the
field; He will take one and leave the other. He doesn't say why. To us, it all appears random. But I'm
convinced He knows who will benefit from
certain tragedies, and who won't (I've written of this before, too. If you can't find it, and want it, let me
know).
After I said that God DID correct some important misprints of the Bible, one of you responded, "Sam, Your claim is
that the altered copies are better respresentations than the originals?" You didn't get what I said: You should/
probably know that the manuscripts - through translations, time, loss of some originals, etc., were lost, or
their meanings were slightly changed. The additional manuscripts or supplements helped to clarify those parts
that were lost or altered through mistranslations.
You said: "Finally, . . . nothing you have said is anything but assertion of faith with no objective evidence
to back it up. It is all opinion, based on your faith." But I did give evidence: Historical writings, the Early
Christian Fathers, etc. Why do you ignore these things I say?
Pierre said, "Sam, there is no Spirit either!" So, Pierre, how do you know that?
Winston said, "Pierre, What continually amazes me is that folks like Sam and PlanksandNails are quite
bright - but they are so caught up in the delusion of their theistic beliefs that their reasoning ability
becomes twisted into half-baked rationalization pretzels that aren't real tasty." Sorry; I just didn't bring my
salt with me.
No, really: Now that I've explained my rationale above, please tell me how my ideas are half-baked rationalization
pretzels.
Sorry about the crazy spacing in my last comment. You can erase it if you want, and I'll try to put in a better-formatted answer, or perhaps I'll just condense it greatly.
(Yes, you may see this as half-baked dribble, if or until proven otherwise. Conviction, I believe is something mere man cannot do for himself.)
Planks,
No, I don't consider it half-baked drivel. I consider it irrational - meaning, separate from reality. This means it is in the realm of imagination. I use rational/irrational to separate what is concrete reality from what is hoped for or imagined might be.
Some people seem to have a psychological need to believe in magic - the irrational. That does not make them bad people. I would call them more on the line of gullible or needy.
You post thought illustrates my point. To protect your beliefs you must create (or be taught) theology that supports that belief.
One does not have to rationalize non-belief. It is much easier and much more eloquent to understand that the reason god allows evil is because there is no god to prevent evil.
As soon as you assume a starting point of no god, the quandry is resolved.
Thanks for your comment.
Sam,
I'll answer you later when I have more time.
I've read through the article and comments again and the following occurs to me
Is a quandary resolved simply by removing one side of the paradox?
I'm imagining an imminent collision of two cars. We can see that it is about to occur, and we are looking for a way to stop it.
The theist believes both cars exist but they are going to collide
The rationalist believes one car to be imaginary, so there is no impending collision.
Neither can convince the other they are correct.
I think this article denies the paradox rather than resolving it, as there is only a paradox if there is a god and the bible is the word of god.
In essence, the article is simply another way of saying the bible is wrong.
Am I over simplifying?
cheers
Planks and Nails, once again you go into a silly rant about God, spirits, angels and following "God's will". Who decides what God's will IS? Why don't I follow Ahura Mazda? He makes a more sensible god/hero figure than Jesus Christ, a craven bully who fashioned a whip and imposed his will on other people through violence (John 2:15!), clearly not someone to be a role-model. As a baseline, let's dispense with bullies as role-models. Non-negotiable. The conundrums and paradoxes just pile higher and higher as the Christian reasserts for the nth time his Christianist pablum (pabulum?), and the simple explanation is starting to look more and more shiny. Change the channel. Get a new education, general secular philosophy, abandon Christianity for a year and try something else. The legend of the Prodigal Son says God HAS to take you back after the year is up. Secular philosophy has spawned much more high-functioning countries than existed in 4 B.C.
SamboRambo, yes, the spacing bug sure didn't help readability. You emit very crude errors of logic like making a statement of the form "Prove X DOESN'T exist..." I could offer you a zillion dollars to prove Porky Pig did NOT create the universe and you'd be just as helpless, might as well believe in Porky as the true God -- Praise the Lard! Shifting the Burden of Disproof is a logical fallacy no matter WHAT the subject is. It is more proper to present positive proof in favor. Surely something as momentous as God can make his presence felt 24/7? Why do you keep acting as if he does not; that there are special excuses NOT to see him? I guess such excuses could be trotted out when humans were physically weak, but we have FLOWN now 25,000 miles an hour! We have devices to see into the X-rays, UV rays, infrared, microwaves and radio. We have PHOTOGRAPHED atoms by now.
Winston's statement that "there is no God" removes paradoxes is NOT a trite opinion, it is REAL FACT! It really DOES simplify the matters you have put up! Every paradox is simpler, made clearer by this; it's not just his opinion that it is so. Until you have a better theory, instead of just piling unsupported statements on top of MORE unsupported statements, you don't win. The odds that there is a blue clown screaming about the economy three feet from your ear go sharply down if you don't, in fact, hear any sound. The hypothesis that there is, in fact, no blue clown works beautifully to resolve this mysterious talk about a blue clown. God is like that blue clown; often talked about, never proven in a real way in proportion to his claimed properties and effects.
(I think this article denies the paradox rather than resolving it, as there is only a paradox if there is a god)
Anton,
You have nailed it it. Congratulations.
Yes, the entire point is that the paradox is a product of the belief. Without the belief, there is no conundrum. A belief that creates a paradox rather than resolving one is pretty uninspiring.
Pierre, you just spent a lot of time and energy giving your opinion and giving examples that have nothing to do with what I said, and not addressing what I said. When I said I'll give you a $M to disprove the existence of God, I didn't do that to prove there is a god. I did that to show that to just come out and say there is no god without presenting evidence of it is simply meaningless and careless. Presenting the "paradoxes" that Winston put down has no power, pull, logic or anything else, especially if the premises he's implying are ungrounded. He's presenting a faulty premise when he assumes that a loving and just God should never allow suffering. There is no universal rule or biblical rule that puts down that law. Therefore, his declaration that the belief in a god creates a paradox that proves he doesn't exist falls flat on its thoughtless and hollow face.
(First of all, folks, let's please get all our semantics right. Nobody can "prove" anything about a god.)
Sam,
First off, let's dispense with this nonsense about proof. Proof is subjective, based on induction. I can prove god exists by producing a wood chip from the cross of Jesus - as long as you are willing to accept its legitamcy it is proof.
This isn't a trial. Our only methods of dealing with this problem are rationality and reason - producing evidential proof has no part, either way.
The closest we will come to proof will be using our intuition to make a determination as to validity. In this sense, we can never "know" anything with 100% certainty, but we can explain rationally, which is the best mankind can accomplish.
We cannot prove or disprove god. We can show whether it is rational or irrational to posit a god, though. Simply put, rational in this sense means an explanation that is based on known natural laws, does not utilize the supernatural, and contains no ontological contradictions. Obviously, the definition moves a god outside of the realm of rationality unless you can show how this god is part of known natural laws, is not supernatural, and adheres to logic.
If you posit a god outside these parameters, you are suggesting the irrational.
(In my answers, I'm using what the Bible teaches - not to teach you the Bible, but - to give you references)
Sam,
I suggest this is an appeal to authority, instead. It is worthless to reference unwarranted assertions as proofs - might as well argue that the neighbor's dog barks and point to Son of Sam's court testimony as proof that it can occur - better than the bible as this testimony was under oath.
(Now, why didn't God let him die or lose an arm, and THEN
restore his life or the part? It was easier to prevent it in the first place.)
Sam,
Do you realize you are rationalizing? You are assuming you know what is easier for god to accomplish. Even if it were, it still does not answer the question of why god has not totally regrown an amputee's arm if not only he can do it but by scripture he gave his followers the power to ask for it and have it done?
You either have to assume no amputees have been worthy of this kind of miracle or it is god's will that every amputee live his life that way - that is simply covering all bases with rationalization rather than reasoning.
Why hasn't god regrown a single amputee's limb in over 2000 years? Answer: Because he can't. Why: Because he isn't real.
It is the same reason Peter Pan has not flown through a bedroom windown.
(The additional manuscripts or supplements helped to clarify those parts that were lost or altered through mistranslations.)
Sam,
First off, if you were trying to make an unbiased determination of accuracy of the originating message, would you pick an original manuscript or a copy from centuries later that had been altered?
Again, you must make an unwarranted assertion that god added these corrections and the current work is more accurate than the original - wouldn't it have been easier for an all-powerful god to simply protect the originals and made sure they were right instead? And what would be the purpose of god using man over centuries to add bits and pieces that did not match with each other instead of simply willing it done, as with creation?
There is no consistency of thought in Christianity - there is only rationalization created to try to fit a particular problem.
Sam,
The easiest way to explain the half-baked pretzels is to paraphrase Sam Harris - it is easy for the Christian to see the delusion of a belief system where a human could ride a winged mule to heaven and back (Islam). But the Christian cannot see that his own belief in a god who appeared as a burning bush and had a son who walked on water is just as delusional.
Why is your belief right - and everyone else wrong? Or are you deluding yourself?
I shouldn't carry on two conversations in my old age, because I can't remember what I said to who. (There's a debate going on in my hub "Evolution or Intelligent Design . . .") Maybe it wasn't you to whom I was talking when I said I don't consider my beliefs the only correct ones. What I'm doing here, as I know I DID mention here, that your logic is full of holes (in my humble opinion). You aren't addressing the reasons I gave for that, but judging me to be delusional and rationalizing your explanations to fit my beliefs. Let's first address that, okay? I'm NOT trying to impress my beliefs on anyone. I'm NOT trying to prove there is a god. I'm only attacking your method of claiming there is no god. See my last comment, refute it, and we'll go from there.
(God is like that blue clown; often talked about, never proven in a real way in proportion to his claimed properties and effects.)
Pierre,
I might steal this one - pretty good.
(He's presenting a faulty premise when he assumes that a loving and just God should never allow suffering. There is no universal rule or biblical rule that puts down that law.)
Sam,
I agree there is no "rule" or "law of god" against suffering - we'll just have to fall back on our own reasoning ability - what a horror, I know, having to thing for oneself. Chilling, isn't it?
If there is no rule or law against suffering then we must conclude that suffering is good (because god is good) and god wants it to happen (because he is all-powerful and could prevent it if he didn't want it to happen). We should then conclude that the more savage a religion the more god-like and good that religion would be, as causing suffering would then be the most god-like act one could do. The Inquisition would be a most god-like action.
Seems silly doesn't it? I agree. But how simple is to understand that suffering simply happens, not because anyone or anything wants it or doesn't want it but because there is no supernatural force that can prevent it.
Without a belief in god, there is no question of evil and good.
Okay, you're doing better. But you're going to the extreme in drawing conclusions. Let's do it in a more calm way: Do you think that doing exercise (a form of suffering and opposition) is good for us?
(Do you think that doing exercise (a form of suffering and opposition) is good for us?)
Sam,
Irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion. Exercise is not a form of suffering.
Better question: is having your 2-year-old daughter raped and murdered good for you?
The issue is the paradox, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge.
We are talking about the attributes of god:
A: all-good
B: all-knowing
C: all-powerful
Now, A, B, C negate the following for god:
D: evil
E: ignorance
F: impotence
Now, if any of the negations are shown to be part of the world that god created, there is a paradox. When there is a paradox, there must be an attempted explanation if there is to be consistency in the belief.
My contention is that one cannot have these pardoxes without A,B,C. A,B,C are thus the causes of the paradoxes. Eliminate A,B,C and there are no paradoxes.
No, Sam. We don't think God created ANYTHING! or made suffering "good" for us.
(No, Sam. We don't think God created ANYTHING! or made suffering "good" for us.)
Austinstar,
The mind really has to twist to come to the conclusion that suffering is a plus - I suppose that is why the bible teaches that when a women grabs private parts her hand is cut off - it makes her feel better.
And, as amputees are god's will, her hand will never regrow, otherwise, god would not have let her sit in row 3 seat 6, at the mud-wrestling event.
And I thought this was all silly nonsense....
I am a strong believer in God. I do not wish to push anything onto anyone, nor do I wish to condemn anyone to anything. The real gamble in taking such a stand against believing in a God or even the possibility of God is that if you are right and I am wrong. then no harm no faul. I will have led my life according to my religion's teachings. this doesn't make me better than anyone else nor does it make someone who lives by another religion's teaching or one who has no religion influencing their life any worse than I. when we die nothing would happen, it would just be over. or if by some miracle as it would probably seem to you, I was right and God does certainly exist, then what would be the ramifications of such stance against the possibility of God.
If it were easy to believe in God then everyone would believe. That is the basis of Faith.
Your first paradox saying that If God is all good then how can he allow evil. Well by the virtue of Saying that God is good means that there must be evil in the world also. If there were no evil, then there would be no good to compare it to. Its like if everyday was sunny, would you appreciate the sunshine. Wouldn't you appreciate the sun's warmth more after a rainy day?
Your second Paradox is why doesn't God do miracles today. When Jesus did the miracles described in the bible, he was doing them to prove he was the savior that no one believed him to be. God does not perform miracles today is ridiculous. miracles take place all the time, just not the mind blowing, "blind can see" type of miracles, or as you put it the re-growing of an amputee's arm. If these miracle took place, then while yes everyone would begin to believe in God. the sincerity and faith would not be there. that is the basis of religion. it takes Faith to believe.
your third paradox of contradictions in the bible is somewhat odd to me. as far as i know, there is no where that says that God himself put the bible together. as religous as i may be i will admit that the church was and still is currupt at times and if i'm not mistaken it was the Catholic church that decided what books and stories went into the bible. now that doesn't mean the bible is not a reliable source of information out there, but the inperfections of a book put together by man does not mean God is not real.
(by the virtue of Saying that God is good means that there must be evil in the world also.)
Matth71,
Sorry, but your claim is unsubstantiated by logic. It is certainly possible that a god could have made a world that lacked evil.
(If there were no evil, then there would be no good to compare it to)
So you are asserting that good is relative, that there is no absolute good. Fine, I buy that. It doesn't mean there is a god or that evil is necessary, though. I would argue that bad action (evil) could be judged against neutral action and still be deemed bad (evil). There is no cause/effect realationship of good/evil though.
(The real gamble in taking such a stand against believing in a God or even the possibility of God is that if you are right and I am wrong. then no harm no faul.)
Pascal's wager - refuted umpteen times - look it up.
(miracles take place all the time, just not the mind blowing, "blind can see" type of miracles, or as you put it the re-growing of an amputee's arm. )
This is an invalid comparison. I specifically said regrow an amputee's arm as it is an objective demonstration of a miracle - there have been no (as in zero) objective demonstrations of miracles in 2000 years. Here, let's change it then - you and whomever you chose, move the Matterhorn to Central Park. The bible says that if two ask anything in his the name of Jesus, it will be done. So do it. Prove me wrong.
(the inperfections of a book put together by man does not mean God is not real.)
I agree. But it would mean that the book is not the perfect word of god, as god's word would be perfect. Therefore, everything known about god is from man - not god. That would lead one to conclude that man caused god, not the other way around.
What I am saying is that God being all good is directly related to the fact that the world has evil in it. if the world had no evil, then God would not be all good becuase there would be no separation between good and evil because there would be neither. therfore for God to be all good, there must in turn be evil.
anybody can ask for something to be done in Jesus name. just because the miracle doesnt happen on command doesn't disprove the existance of God. I whole heartedly believe that any miracle you ask for, God has the ability to do it. Just because God as the ability doesnt mean he will do it though. for example, superman has super strentgh. if he does not use his super strentgh does that mean he is unable to to lift heavy objects.
and lastly it is mind-blowing the amount of imagination it would take for man to fantasize God. the idea itself is one that would take an immense amount of creativity to bring from out of nothing. i never claimed the bible to be the perfect word of god, nor have i ever heard the bible to be the perfect word of god. how can the perfect word of god be in a book that man wrote. what the bible is, is a collection of stories of man's interactions with God. the Gospels for instance are biographys of jesus christ through the eyes of his disciples. it is not written by jesus nor claimed to be. therefore the bible being written by man does not mean that it is not of God, but that it is inspired by god. to be inspired by god means that the existance of God compelled man to write these stories down and eventually combine them into a book that man decided to call the bible.
Whoa! If I grab Bob's private parts, I don't get my hand cut off, I get whatever I want! hahahaha
Now, if some other woman did it, I suppose I might end up chopping her hand off. But then again, I'm too lazy. I just don't feel like "playing God".
It's amazing to me that people can't trace the history of God back to when man began "worshiping" the burning bush. Fire Good! Man LIKE Fire! That burning bush must be Good! Oh, if you listen closely enough you can "hear it speak" or "see a face in the flames". Short hop later - Fire came down out of the sky from "God"!
Then down through the centuries, more and more "Gods" were invented. Then some MAN decided they really had too many gods and just consolidated them into the "one true God" and no one has been able to figure out which one it is since. Hence all the arguments and fighting and brain washing.
(if the world had no evil, then God would not be all good )
matth71,
I guess at this point you realize you are simply blathering on nonsense? The Christian attribute for god is that he is perfect love, perfect good. But you are saying he could not have this attribute without evil.
O.K., fine, then how did god exist prior to Satan's rebellion? That was the first bit of known evil every to occur - a rebellion against god. But if it took this evil for god to exist, how could there be a rebellion against him before he existed?
Here is the deal, whether you like it or not. There is no warrant for the assertion that evil is necessary, and there is nothing illogical about positing a world created without evil.
(I whole heartedly believe that any miracle you ask for, God has the ability to do it.)
Perhaps you don't believe the bible to be the word of god. But in the bible the promise is made that it WILL be done, not that it might be done or that it can be done.
You are simply rationalizing your beliefs to fit the fact that no objective miracle has ever been performed.
A simpler explanation is: there is no supernatural being who can peform miracle. There is no god.
(and lastly it is mind-blowing the amount of imagination it would take for man to fantasize God.)
So, you are saying that those stories about Thor and Pegasus and Valhala are all true? You are claiming Poseiden lives beneath the waves?
How far does one have to evolve thinking to go from many gods to one god? And how many thousands of years did wandering nomadic tribes of semites gather around campfires at night and tell tales and legends of their peoples' triumphs in stories like Samson and the exodus from Egypt.
It is not that far from thunder representing Thor's hammer to Jesus raised from the dead. The common denominator is delusional belief that magic is reality.
There is not a single objective fact that requires a god as an explanation for its being; yet at the same time, any perplexing question of contradiction between god and reality can be eliminated simply by assuming that there is no god.
Which is the more likely and the reasonable assumption to make - god or no god?
(MAN decided they really had too many gods and just consolidated them into the "one true God" and no one has been able to figure out which one it is since)
Austinstar,
There may be a hub in the making simply tracing the evolution of god - even in the bible he went from being a humanoid form that walked in the garden and wrestled with some old fart and then morphed into the transitional fossil-god of the burning bush and then the pillar of fire god in The Ten Commandments that handwrote the stone tablets, back to the humanoid Son of Humanoid god and then to eerily risen Son of Humanoid god to hiding in heaven Son of Humanoid god, and lastly immaterial great spirit in the sky god.
Back where we started from - spirit in the sky - they used to call it the sun.
Pierre,
Your stabbing remarks are the equivalent of bringing Tang and Kraft dinner to the Iron Chef America judges to consider as palatable fare.
(“An intelligent outsider, who doesn't fancy himself the Bride of Christ or Christ's Bitch or anything, would take the Bible given to him, skim ahead and exclaim, "Wait a minute! Donkeys can't talk! This book sucks!")
An intelligent person must see both sides of the table to make a rational conclusion. I would recommend a more thorough study in theology as the second part of your statement takes the intelligence out of your statement. A small step would be to look up the word context in your pursuits of an “intelligent outsider”.
(“Planks and Nails, once again you go into a silly rant about God, spirits, angels and following "God's will".)
Your fervid insults of futility are trying to add something to the “meat” of the hub, but the same bland ingredients added over and over are becoming distasteful to the point that each of your commentaries echoes that of an elementary school hallway.
(“Change the channel. Get a new education, general secular philosophy, abandon Christianity for a year and try something else.”)
C’mon Pierre, do you think you really know that much about me. Sometimes, whether you see it or not, it is ketchup you are putting on the “prime rib” when “au jus” adds a much finer flavour to the dish of the hub.
(“Who decides what God's will IS?”)
I would hope you would be able to answer this on your own. From a one-sided point of view, I can see your tottering interrogative.
(“He makes a more sensible god/hero figure than Jesus Christ, a craven bully who fashioned a whip and imposed his will on other people through violence (John 2:15!)”)
(“The legend of the Prodigal Son says God HAS to take you back after the year is up.”)
A brush up on theology would be an asset in your statements here, as I cannot entertain your “paper tiger” resolve on the premise of ignorance.
They used to call it the Sun God! Ra
And the burning bush was called El
As each God got bigger and bigger, so did the name! And its powers too (got bigger and better).
I'm getting bored. When someone refuses to acknowledge my arguments, or do not address them except by saying "Irrelevant," I feel I'm talking to a rock. Well, to some degree, maybe this is satisfying to me, because it shows you can't refute my argument. So we'll leave it at that, and "Have a good life."
Planks, you're just trying to ignore what I'm saying. The game runes are now this, for they have given us true human progress: If YOU claim God, or spirit, you must provide positive proof in favor. I'm not making any dangerous assumption saying there are NO such things because there really AREN'T. I'm talking from the perspective of a scientist, and scientists hold the MONOPOLY on detecting invisible things (planets past Saturn, X-rays, the electrons in your computer or cellphone) and making them evident to the public. RELIGION has not proven any invisible thing to anyone's satisfaction.
To make claims of huge, momentous things like God and spirit is similar to making a claim there is a Blue Clown screaming rants about the economy not three feet from your ear, and yet no one sees this Blue Clown nor hears a thing apart from other sounds, like the hum of my disk-drive or the reassuring chalk-sound of my Ace the Suckahs chalk-board as I tally another killer point of argument. Where IS this Blue Clown being talked about with such fervor, and why should I listen to what he says when there is no sound? What is the special "way of listening" people seem to be implying? All unproven fluff. Extraordinary claims require EXTRAORDINARY levels of direct proof; that's how the game is played now. Beliefs in unproven fluff are untenable. Your only hope may be to revive the ancient arguments for such things: coercion and group pressure. However the world has changed, we have freedoms in our respective constitutions and such, and group pressure now seems to be working the other way as Europeans find that a religion keeps them from getting jobs or networking with the worthwhile people. Nine countries including mine are projected to lose all religion by 2050.
Pierre,
You are trying to spray the cud of your commentary here as it keeps regurgitating into "spam" with no "meat" to the theme of the hub, nor applicable to commentary of others.
Your commentaries reek of red herring and ad hominem.
I'm going to move on.
(Well, to some degree, maybe this is satisfying to me, because it shows you can't refute my argument)
Sam,
One first has to make an argument before it can be refuted. Asking a misleading question as an example is not an argument, and I gave you an alternative that I would accept.
You wanted to build an argument around excerise as suffering, and I offered having your 2-year-old child raped and murdered as an alternative.
It seems to me you only have an agument relative to the degree of what you consider suffering. If your argument cannot satisfactorily explain both scenarios, it is self-refuting anyway.
Regardless, the hub refutes any argument you might make as all your arguments can accomplish is to rationalize a paradox - when dissolving all paradoxes with the simple hypothesis of assuming there is no god requires no justification or rationalization.
Any argument you make must be of the form that "magical creature X does thus and thus, which explains condition Y", when all I'm doing is adopting the position that there is no magical creature X. By doing so, condition Y becomes self-explanatory, and there is no paradox.
There is no need to argue anything else. I do not have to refute your rationalizations. The oddest paradox is that the paradoxes themselves are caused by addition of the concept of god. Eliminate god, no more paradoxes.
Thanks for playing.
Sam,
A followup. We should all be aware that there is no such thing as abolute certainty of knowledge, that all knowledge at its core is intuitive. At some point we have to accept a starting point and build from there.
To assert that the degrees of suffering are immaterial to an argument for god to me is disingenuous - intuitively, not one of us can really believe that the mild, temporary discomfort of exercise is in any way the equivalent to being burned at the stake, being disembowled, or dying on the rack.
Frankly, it is ludicrous to make the claim. I say this knowing it is opinion only, but it is opinion backed by realization and experience of feeling the temporary discomfort of excercise compared to real, serious injuries, and witnessing the responses of others to various similar conditions.
This type of utilization of reason and experience to assist intuition is what separated the Dark Ages from the Age of Enlightenment.
Dark Ages thinking lingers, though, as the vast majority of humans still uses magical explanations for human conditions.
One would hope that eventually 21st century man would demand as much evidence for his mystical beings as he does for evidence that there are no contaminents in his food supply. Perhaps a Food and God Administration would help - a protective agency to prevent excrement from entering our food supply or our minds.
Winston, providing an alternative is not addressing my argument. Saying exercise is not a form of suffering is giving your opinion without saying why. Ask any competent debate student, and they'll tell you my question is not misleading. Ask anyone who has half a brain, and they'll tell you I have very sound arguments. I've told you the why's of my arguments. I've provided **documented** cases of where people don't feel torture (Viktor Frankl, for instance). You haven't as much as flicked it off your shoulder.
I've long ago addressed your scenario (2-year-old raped and murdered), but you have been completely mum on what I offered, and you go on as if I never said anything. How can I fight silence?
I'm repeating myself as I remind you: I'm not rationalizing a paradox; I'm telling you it is flawed, for assuming something that is nowhere near the truth.
Sam,
Even if I accept your proposition that exercise is a form of suffering, that in no way validates your argument as sound.
For an argument to be sound, its premises must be true. It is not true that mild discomfort is suffering. Ergo, your argument can be valid but never sound.
I'm simply shortcutting the argument - why bother a refutation when I can clearly show you that you cannot build a sound argument.
All I am doing is stating that the cases I noted are not paradoxes once an assumption is made that there is no god. That is simply reasoned evidence for that position. It is not meant as proof.
My starting position is existence exists. Your starting position is more complicated, existence exists because of god, and thus requires an explanation. The onus is on you to first explain how a god is rationally possible, the attributes of this god and how we objectively know those attributes, and how this god accomplishes his interaction with reality.
You can clain it is done by will and that ancient texts are evidence. But the New Testament is all hearsay evidence, as not a single writer of any book was a first person contemporary who knew Jesus, and all that we have left are copies of copies of copies of copies that contain thousands of discrepancies. The Old Testament is obviously moral poetry and legend, so there really isn't a need to try to use that as evidence of anything but Jewish folktales.
The simply fact is this: all paradoxes resolve with a simple hypothesis - there is no god.
(I've long ago addressed your scenario (2-year-old raped and murdered), but you have been completely mum on what I offered, and you go on as if I never said anything. How can I fight silence?)
Sam,
I went back through comments and I didn't see a single time you made a claim regarding suffering of a molested and murdered child. The only claim I saw was that you wanted to make exercise synonymous with suffering and I said no.
But that is irrelevant. Here is your relevant comment:
(I'm only attacking your method of claiming there is no god.)
You misrepresent my position. I am not claiming there is no god. I am simply showing that the reasonable and rational hypothesis is that there is no god, and the reasons why that hypothesis is reasonable and rational.
This is not a matter of right or wrong; it is a matter of rational or irrational.
“It is not true that mild discomfort is suffering. Ergo, your argument can be valid but never sound.” Winston, athletes - Olympic material - suffer in order to become stronger, and it’s not mild. But batting at these definitions misses the point; it was used to illustrate a greater concept: God allows (notice I said allows and not gives) suffering (discomfort) on a larger scale, because it is intended to bring much more growth and experience. It is intended to help us learn more compassion and love. Look what 9-11 did. I can find you many stories of spiritual growth among the survivors and onlookers. And - again - as I said before, there is **factual evidences** of how suffering is subdued or non-existent (see my link below).
“All I am doing is stating that the cases I noted are not paradoxes once an assumption is made that there is no god. That is simply reasoned evidence for that position. It is not meant as proof.” Winston, they’re not paradoxes anyway, as I’ve pointed out. I’ll give a more thorough reason why, below.
“My starting position is existence exists. Your starting position is more complicated, existence exists because of god, and thus requires an explanation. The onus is on you to first explain how a god is rationally possible.” Winston, I didn’t come to this hub trying to explain that (Let’s see about the fourth? time I said that). I’m here to show you that those aren’t paradoxes. You assume a child dying is “bad.” The premise is wrong, because death is sweet to a child, and - to boot - he is in a very happy state with God. You may say, “But I don’t know there is a god, and I don’t think death is sweet, because there certainly are terrible deaths in children, so you have to prove it all.” The hidden wrench in this whole thing, Winston, is that you’re including Christian belief in your premise: “If God is good and all-powerful.....” If you’re going to include that, then you must include the Christian belief that a child’s death is not a bad thing. Yet you’re saying it IS a bad thing, so you’re creating a dichotomy in two separate Christian concepts in order to attempt to create a paradox. If there’s a paradox, Winston, it’s in the dichotomy you created.
“Sam, I went back through comments and I didn't see a single time you made a claim regarding suffering of a molested and murdered child.” Winston, I went back through as well, and I saw this reference to my hub called “Do the Innocent Really Suffer?” Here: I’ll make it easier by putting in a link: http://hubpages.com/hub/SufferingIsMinimal
That is where you’ll find it. Of course it doesn’t refer to a murdered child (a molested one, yes), but one can assume that if these happened (and we have strong evidence of that in Viktor Frankl’s book and in my own experiences which I’ll swear to you on penalty of anything you choose, that they are true), then they would happen even more thoroughly for a child that is being murdered.
Sam,
Allow me to show you something. I assure you there is not trick involved. I am going to answer your claims, but I have to list them first.
(God allows (notice I said allows and not gives) suffering (discomfort) on a larger scale, because it is intended to bring much more growth and experience. It is intended to help us learn more compassion and love.)
This is your rationalization of the paradox that is inherent in the Christian definition of god when that definition is compared to reality. Do you understand that?
(I can find you many stories of spiritual growth among the survivors and onlookers. And - again - as I said before, there is **factual evidences** of how suffering is subdued or non-existent (see my link below).)
This is only meaningful to those who want to believe it meaningful - it is completely subjective and is evidence of nothing but he said/she said. Again, to be objective, god or his believers need to relocate by prayer the Matterhorn to Central Park. The fact that it cannot be done is powerful evidence that the god of the bible does not exist, just as an empty room is powerful evidence that there is no buffalo hiding in the room. Notice, you can claim an invisible, immaterial, spirit buffalo that can't be seen, but the reasonable person will look at the empty room and decide: 1) there is no buffalo, and 2) you are full of crap.
(The premise is wrong, because death is sweet to a child, and - to boot - he is in a very happy state with God.)
Sam, at this point you are actually dissolving into a twisted and sick pervert. I would venture that not a single atheist or agnostic would have the gall to make a claim that a child molested and killed is good for the child - that is simply sick.
This is only the twisted logic that a theist can dream up. The paradox is simple: how could an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being allow evil to exist in the world.
Your answer is that evil is good for children?
Look at all the words you wrote trying to justify an abstact concept that occupies zero space in the universe.
It is your imaginings and ramblings that create and perpetuate this being - as soon as you stop believing in him, he doesn't exist.
I asked you this before and you chose not to answer: what can mankind fail to accomplish without god that makes it necessary to believe in god? Answer? Nothing.
I can solve all those questions you wrote so long about with four simple words: there is no god. Case closed.
If only it were closed, Winston. These guys just don't think rationally. Priests molest children just as often as pedophiles do. I must be good for the children.
What an insane idea.
(Priests molest children just as often as pedophiles do. I must be good for the children.)
Austinstar,
Let's not forget the pedophile priests, who top the "make baby happy" top-ten countdown this week with their hit "Bless the beastiality and the children".
I think I have figured out the problem. Being from Salt Lake City, Sam is most likely living too close to the temple without using a screening cream with a sufficiently high delusion rating.
I could loan him my tinfoil head piece.
"I asked you this before and you chose not to answer: what can mankind fail to accomplish without god that makes it necessary to believe in god? Answer? Nothing."
Winston, you asked that question on my hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Evolution-or-Intelligent-D
I answered it in a paragraph starting with "Reason to have God: ...."
The rest of your comments are pure regurgitated opinions that ignore my solid explanations of such, while using examples that do not provide a realistic simile for your point. I see we're going in circles, making me bored again.
(The rest of your comments are pure regurgitated opinions that ignore my solid explanations)
Sam,
That problem you are having is due to your own inability to explain, reluctance to address, or obfuscation of the initial issue. You can't make a paradox go away by wishing it were not so.
Let me make it really, really simple.
God is claimed to have attribute A, All Good, and god created the world.
Yet the world contains B, evil.
This is immediately paradoxal - not because I say it but by the definition of paradox.
You, on the other hand, are claiming there is no initial paradox because you redefine outcomes to fit your beliefs, trying to argue suffering isn't suffering, which didn't sit too well with my 2-year-old when she slammed her hand in the car door. Her response to your proposition was loud and long, "Waaaaaahhhhhhhh!"
But even that doesn't matter, as you cannot totally refute all evil that way. So you still have to explain the paradox, why an all-good god created a world that contains evil.
Don't look now but your explanation is an attempt to resolve the paradox - you cannot say your explanation eliminates the initial paradox - that would be circular and begging the question. The paradox is established by two points: the attributes of god, and the world that is in contradiction to those attributes.
I used A/B for simplicy. When you add more Christian attributes the explanaion problem is magnified, not lessened.
The three concensus Christian attributes of god are:
All loving
All knowing
All powerful
A paradox automatically is established because this world contains evil.
Now, to answer that one question about evil we can read the billions of words of religious theologic rationalizations and logics to show it is possible - under certain assumptions - to explain the paradox.
Or, we can explain the paradox much more simply: There is evil in the world because there is no supernatural being capable of preventing it.
One can make all sorts of claims about the supernatural as there is no objective data to dispute the assertions.
One could say that Hurricane Katrina drowned over 3000 in New Orleans because an invisible giant pink panda that is all powerful didn't like the French Quarter and the moral decay in the city, so it sent a hurricane against the city, which was not protected from disaster because of the population's lack of pink panda faith.
One could just as easily assert that the Katrina hurricane disaster was caused by an immature invisible all-powerful sugar plum fairy who thought the city was thirsty and gave it a drink.
Finally, you could simply say the hurricane happened because there was no supernatural power that had the ability to prevent it from happening.
In all cases, the reaonable choice is the latter - there is no invisible superman who rights all wrongs and makes everything all square in the end.
Positing an immaterical spirit superdaddy super-protecter who makes everything all better in the end is simply addressing childish fears with childish belief.
Christian logics and rationalizations are all post hoc - no one believes in the god fantasy because it makes so much sense. They believe it because it fills a psychological need.
All god beliefs stem from a psychological need. Why can you not see this, Sam?
You have a DESIRE to live forever in some beautiful, perfect place, so you have grasped on to the straw that allows that need to be filled.
You have a FEAR that what you parents told you about being bad is true and you might go to hell if you don't do what they say.
All religions are about human emotions and how to "behave". These are psychological needs, not reality.
(All religions are about human emotions)
Austinstar,
Yes, it seems as though many, if not most, people perceive some kind on imbalance that must be rectified, and thus all mysteries yet unexplained are dumped onto the god mystery repository.
It is almost like god is Mikey and the world population is trying to explain the mysteries of breakfast cereal - Let's give it to Mikey. He can do anything!
As Ronald Reagan would have said, "There you go again!"
What you're pounding to death (one of many, by the way), is this notion that you think you know me and my motives. So let's surprise the everlovin' "obfuscation" out of you and let you in on a few facts: I'm not scared of anything my mother, or father, or bishop, or godfather, or Bin Laden, or anybody else said to me or taught me. At one point in my 30's I became an agnostic. My family and friends gave me this weird look. I smiled and said, "I understand you." I didn't want anything to do with church or religion. My emotional and psychological needs were having a heyday! Then one day things began to happen. After a while, I couldn't ignore the messages that indicated I was wanted - not by mortals, but - by forces outside our sphere of existence. Somebody wanted me in church again.
Also, sit down, my little children, because this is going to be a doosie: I don't believe God is all-powerful in the sense the rest of the religious world thinks him to be. I also don't believe he is all knowing in the same sense. So don't you herd me into a group of people you believe to be mindless and naive!
Now, if you read my comments carefully, and the articles I referred you to, you will see that I exercised great efficiency at presenting knowledgeable and credible arguments. It was I that was beginning to believe YOU were fresh out of ideas and couldn't refute my arguments, and for that reason, you didn't say anything about Viktor Frankl or my niece (Kayleen) or the reasons I outlined about why we need God in my other hub.
Okay, if you insist, let me go one more dimension above my other arguments: You are assuming that because God is supposedly all loving and all powerful, that it must follow that he must create a world without evil in it - or that the end result shall have no evil in it. So where is it written that such a being must not create such a world? NOwhere! There's another reason the paradox falls flat.
(You are assuming that because God is supposedly all loving and all powerful, that it must follow that he must create a world without evil in it - or that the end result shall have no evil in it. So where is it written that such a being must not create such a world?)
Sam,
This is growing laboriously childish. Logic dictates that of all possible worlds there is a possible world that could have been actuated that lacked evil. This is not my pick - this is simply the logic of the Christian proposition that there is a creator god. Even Alvin Plantinga concurs that a world lacking evil is certainly possible and logical.
But where the Christian thinking fails is that the real world, the one in which we live, must somehow be made to appear to be the best one that could have been made. The crime must fit the evidence, not the other way round.
So, we have a real world in which bad things happen, in which immoral actions cause pain to innocents. We call that concept evil.
Now, one must rationalize why god would choose this world that certainly contains that which we classify as evil when he had the power to do otherwise and other possiblities were equally valid.
It is you who has to make the claim that this particular world is the best choice. All I claim is that other world models are equally viable.
And that is the conundrum - if other worlds were equally viable, then why this particular world?
The answer to this requires a rationalization based on the free will argument. But the free will argument fails, as god is then ultimately responsible for evil, and thus exercised his free will to allow evil. You cannot blame only the soldiers for exercisng their free will in executing Jews during the holocaust. Hitler may not have executed a single Jew, but he is certainly responsible for all 6 million deaths because he had it within his power to prevent them. It is no different with a god. If the power was there to prevent it, and it was not prevented, then god is responsible.
Whether it is written anywhere other than logic 101 textbooks is irrelevant.
No god hand wrote a note that said, Dear Mankind, you needed free will so I chose to keep evil around for that purpose.
So you see, Sam, the only thing that falls flat here is your continued unwarranted assertions that what you believe is reality.
P.S.
(What you're pounding to death (one of many, by the way), is this notion that you think you know me and my motives.)
I could care less about your personal motives or what you personally believe. This is not a personal attack on you.
It is commentary of reason.
(you didn't say anything about Viktor Frankl or my niece (Kayleen) or the reasons I outlined about why we need God in my other hub.)
Sam,
I answered on your hub but will succintly do so again. It is stupid to attempt to try to refute subjectively-held belief. You are convinced based on your sentient experiences that your extremely limited human sensory system has guided you to the Nirvana and god dun it is then a valid opinion.
I am not stupid - I won't lower myself to a he/said, she/said debate about opinions. The evidence itself is unworthy of discussion - it is only valid by way of belief, either pro or con, so why bother offering it?
There is no (as in zero, nada, goose egg) objective attainments that require a belief in god and cannot be accomplished without a belief in god.
Your list of subjective beliefs that "god dun it" is just that - a laundry list of personal opinion.
You just like to call your opinion arguments when they are only assertions of faith.
Winston, do you know what the definition of "premise" is? Please answer that, and tell me if it's important that a premise represents facts. Next, tell me if you believe your first paradox is based on a sound premise that implies facts. Maybe if you give me these answers, I'll understand better where you're coming from.
@SamboRambo: A premise is a statement which is assumed to correspond to objective reality, as distinct from opinion.
Yes, Winston's first paradox is based on a sound premise (i.e., it corresponds to objective reality). Bad things happen to good people and bad things happen to "bad" people in equal proportion.
(Please answer that, and tell me if it's important that a premise represents facts)
Sam,
I have a more generic definition of premise than the one used by Chasuk. A premise is simply a proposition used as the basis for an argument.
Whether a premise corresponds to objective reality (to use Chasuk's words) is what determines if the argument is sound.
A valid argument (one of which the conclusion is a logical necessity of its premises) can certainly be composed starting with invalid premises. For example:
P1: Premarital sex causes STDs.
P2: A disease can be eliminated if all hosts of that disease are eliminated.
P3: STDs are thus preventable by abstaining from premarital sex. (From P1)
Conclusion: Therefore, STDs would be eliminated if there were no premarital sex. (From P2, P3)
Although this argument is valid, it is unsound as P1 is not consistent with reality.
(Bad things happen to good people and bad things happen to "bad" people in equal proportion)
Chasuk,
Thanks for your input. I seem to have reached an impasse with Sam, or he with me. Your input is welcomed.
So how does your premise NOT show a subjective condition? The reason I call it subjective, is because I don't see why someone "good" is not supposed to allow evil. If the premise were truly objective, I would have to accept it. What am I not seeing that tells me it's truly objective?
I'm curious, though: answer me this: Is someone therefore to conclude, from your "paradox," that there is definitely no god?
@AKA Winston: I sometimes lurk a long while before contributing to a dialogue. I don't bother if I think that one or both participants are disingenuous. However, SamboRambo seems sincere. Your own sincerity, of course, is beyond question (as is your application of logic).
I'm glad that my input is appreciated. Thank you for the interesting hub. For me, Paradox #2 is the most effortlessly persuasive of the three.
@SamboRambo: If you aren't one of those Christians claiming miracles as evidence for the existence of God, then Paradox #2 doesn't apply to you. Winston makes this clear with the words, "Believers are quick to point to near-death experiences, healings, and biblical miracles as evidence of their belief."
(So how does your premise NOT show a subjective condition?)
Sam,
Let me first clarify that I don't always use the common language definition - rarely when I am trying to argue a point. Objective: observer independent. Subjective: observer depenedent.
The first premise: subjective
The second premise: objective
The third premise: subjective
I will clarify.
The first premise is subjective as determination of good/evil in itself requires an observer - good/evil is an opinion, basically.
The second premise is objective because it deals with an object - a limb - this is binary, with no room for opinion. If a missing limb were restored, it would not matter who saw it, felt it, believed it, licked it, bit it, wrote about it, etc - it would still exist. Its existence would be observer independent.
The third premise is subjective because it requires observers to apply definitions to the words. That there are contradictions within the book is not objective per my definition, but is an induction based on evidence.
This is probably why Chasuk sees #2 as the most persuasive - it is, by my definition, objective.
(answer me this: Is someone therefore to conclude, from your "paradox," that there is definitely no god?)
Sam,
The only thing I said in this hub is that the paradoxes are resolved by the simple expedient "of assuming" there is no god. It is up to the reader to determine if the reasoning presented is persuasive or not.
My only goal was to show how the simple application of basic reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is probably no god - that Christian belief is therefore based on faith, rather than reason.
The hub is a refutation of the claims by both Martin Luther and William Lane Craig, in that my claim is that when matters of faith are confronted by evidence and reason, it is evidence and reason we should rely on rather than faith in our superstitions.
Had we followed this advice, it would be difficult to explain how 19 middleclass young men hijacked and piloted four airplanes as living bombs because of their faith.
And that is the point.
Thank you, Winston. Looks like I flew around the world to get to this point, instead of putting on your hat and taking the three steps to get there.
So (tapping on a rock, wondering if it's a clam) if you had not explained that point, would Chasuk have known you were trying to make such a point? I ask that, because there seems to be an inherent message in your hub that he picked up on - or maybe this is a philosophical tool so basic that other philosophers immediately know what it is.
Sam,
I am not clear on your question, so I can only say at this point that logical consistency is what I presume Chasuk noticed.
@SamboRambo: I've been reading and studying philosophy for 40 years. I know, I'm only fifty, so forty years of philosophical education doesn't sound likely, but I was a weird kid. I was reading, comprehending, and enjoying Voltaire before I entered the fifth grade. I'm not bragging; I wouldn't wish my miserable precocity on anyone. I'm providing this mini-biography to answer your question. Yes, there is a philosophical tool -- toolbox, really -- that, after one has acquired it, makes some points easier to pick up on. I don't think that there is an answer I haven't heard, used in philosophical arguments. I don't think I've heard a new argument in twenty years. The pleasure comes from hearing old arguments expressed in more eloquent ways. Winston is eloquent. That's why I keep coming back for more. :-)
I am very limited in my philosophical endeavors or background. On quiet days, I feel like I'm drawn into philosophical musings. On my hub pages, I'm writing a novel about a man who has the unique opportunity to step into a role that might make him "the devil" of a certain planet. He considers it, even though he is a man of great integrity. Winston and Chasuk, I would be very interested in knowing your reaction to how I presented and developed the scenario. It's called "The Sweetsong of the Ladydove."
Chasuk,
Thank you for the kind words of encouragement - they are appreciated.
I do not live religiously. I do not believe in God. There is a big difference between believing in something and having faith. My faith is based on personal knowledge, and frankly I am a bit ashamed of that because I had to see in order to 'believe'.
I find it interesting that non-believers spend a great deal of time and energy expounding on the flaws of what others believe, using logic and pragmatism, and frequently asking 'why'? If you don't believe, then why ask why?
I am anchored in my faith because it is there that I find goodness; those not interested in faith usually have no interest in goodness.
I am a Shama'an priest, and because of the things I have seen I have to believe. My interest in the Spirit is because of the love relationship which exists. Those who are not interested in the Spirit usually have no interest in love.
All logic and proof aside, I have to wonder if you have ever asked yourself 'what if I'm wrong?'.
eltejano - "If you don't believe, then why ask why?"
Why are you asking?
(Those who are not interested in the Spirit usually have no interest in love.)
eltejano,
I have a terrific interest in owning some love. If you could point out where I could go buy and pound or two of love, it would be helpful.
Sorry, love can neither be bought or owned, only given. And the only way to do that is to find it within yourself.
(Sorry, love can neither be bought or owned)
eltejano,
I see. So you are saying love is not a "thing" that has shape and location, but a concept, an idea which must be defined in order to have any meaning at all.
So what is the definition of this concept "love" that you are the expert in, or are you just spouting meaningless jibberish?
I am not confident that dogmatic or bigoted statements from the shamanist tradition will be any better than the familiar dogmatism of Christianity.
(I am not confident that dogmatic or bigoted statements from the shamanist tradition will be any better than the familiar dogmatism of Christianity.)
Pierre,
Now don't make him mad as he was just about to tell me where this thingamajob called love can be found within the human body - I'm thinking it's behind the liver or else another name for the appendix.
Either way, as soon as I find out where it is I will have it cut out so I can be a "real" atheist.
I'm a Choctaw Curandera, so I'll give discounts for anyone who wants to be a "real" atheist! Let's assume it's the kidney, I can re-sell those!
(I'll give discounts for anyone who wants to be a "real" atheist!)
Austinstar,
Unfortunately, I doubt this "love" thing will be found by opening my body and looking for it. After all, it is not an object you can point to and say, aha, there it is.
Love - like any concept - is nothing until it is defined.
I think this is the right definition: love is a decision and a commitment. That means, anyone - including an atheist, is capable of chosing to act with love.
Of course, if someone wants to pop peyote and talk about an ephemeral "love" that has no definition, then I hope he and Carlos enjoy a happy and long life wandering the desert while muttering jibberish about finding "love" within yourself.
Ah, the life of the "spiritual curandera". No bills to pay, no family to support, no love.
(no love)
austinstar,
Don't give up hope - I'm sure eltejano will tell us any minute now what love looks like and then we can go find some.
But...have you ever noticed how "love" is never listed as an item for a scavenger hunt?
I looked deep inside Your Self, but all I found was a pickled human head inside an old car. It didn't look much like love.
(The premise is wrong, because death is sweet to a child, and - to boot - he is in a very happy state with God.)
Sam,
I had to go back and readdress this statement as it reminds me of something Sam Harris wrote about in his book, Letter to a Christian Nation. In that book, Harris points out that recently the Catholic Church sponsored a gathering of cardinals to make a determination of what happens to children who die prior to being baptised.
Can you imagine a more assinine or arrogant attempt to try to address the impossible to know? At what point do reasonable and rational human beings say enough, you guys are totally nuts, and start condemning religion wholesale instead of giving it a buy because of amount of practioners?
So, you know whether or not every child who dies on the entire planet dies a sweet happy death because that child is with god?
Sorry, but who made YOU god, Sam, to know all this?
Sam, I have actually watched babies die. They do not go peacefully like you see on tv. They scream and cry and appear to be in agony. I don't know who told you that babies go to heaven when they die, but they are so bloody wrong. And if they're wrong about that, then don't you think they are wrong about God? I do. From personal experience. You watch a baby die for want of a blood transfusion while the parents stand idly by and pray to nothing instead of signing a right to transfuse. I hope they rot in your excellent hell. But they won't and I won't either. Because there is no hell or heaven for babies or adults to go to.
Delude yourself all you want. There really is no "supreme being in the sky that needs you to worship him for creating you".
Austinstar,
There you go again. Introducing reality into the fantasy. Next thing you know, you'll ask for evidence of the fanciful.
There is no evidence of the fanciful. Just wishful thinking as usual.
I know it's in their head from birth that God exists. And while they're children, I get it. I was the same way. I believed my parents.
But when adults learn to question things and reason, why do they keep repeating the same old lies? and fanciful wishes? And "proof" that God exists because someone sees a "cross" in a human protein. This is not proof. This is mass hysteria!
"So, you know whether or not every child who dies on the entire planet dies a sweet happy death because that child is with god?
"Sorry, but who made YOU god, Sam, to know all this?"
Winston, if the first paragraph is a question, I didn't understand it. Answering the second question: I thought it was a given that I didn't claim to know anything. I was just presenting evidence based on my own experience, and on the experience of others whose stories I believe, because I trust them.
"[When babies die] they scream and cry and appear to be in agony."
Austin,
I referred the readers here to my hub called "Do the Innocent really suffer?" You made the above statement without addressing the stories written therein, and in Part 2 of that series. I won't try to address what you said - or your conclusions based on your experience - until you read and comment on those hubs.
"I don't know who told you that babies go to heaven when they die, but they are so bloody wrong."
Austin,
Please tell me how you discovered the knowledge that babies don't go to heaven. I would be extremely interested.
"There is no evidence of the fanciful. Just wishful thinking as usual."
Austin! How on earth did you find out that I was wishfully thinking? What talent!
"I know it's in their head from birth that God exists. ... But when adults learn to question things and reason, why do they keep repeating the same old lies?"
Austin, I beg you, again: Tell me how you found out they were lies. Man! I wish I had the omniscience you are blessed with!
Sam:
Babies don't go to heaven because there is no heaven for them to go to. Can you prove to me that heaven actually exists and where it is? No, I can't prove that it doesn't, but since there is no evidence of it, I don't have to.
Wishful thinking is the base of all religions. God is a concept, not a reality. If God were real, there would be no reason for him to be so invisible. Don't say faith and free will. That's just wishful thinking again.
There are so many lies in the bible that I don't need to address them here. You've been fed the lies from birth either from your parents, or your peers, or from the media. The biggest lie in our life is personal life after death. Again, more wishful thinking.
Will you ever just look at religion with open eyes? Or are you determined to "have faith"?
Austin, I have not said that there is definitely a heaven. You said that there is definitely NO heaven. Therefore, I don't have to prove there is a heaven because of my language. It's **you** who has to prove there is no heaven, because of the definitive language you used. Because of my language, I can give **evidences** and that should be good enough.
Austin, tell me where it says that wishful thinking is the base of all religions. I need proof, and not an opinion. Same same for "God is a concept...." Same same for God needing to be visible. Who wrote that manual?
Austin, why do you keep pigeon-holing me into places that are your own fancies? I've told you time and time again things that should help you to realize you are mistaken about me: I **did** start thinking as an adult. I **did** stray from the teachings of my parents and church. I **did** stop what you call **wishful** thinking. I **did** look at religion with open eyes. I **did** choose to stop exercising faith. I became agnostic, as I mentioned before here. What came after that was **not** due to wishful thinking. I don't **want** to "waste" my time doing church stuff and living a conserative life. What happened were a series of **unmistakable** events and witnesses within my heart that pointed toward the conclusion that I should reunite with my church as a faithful member again. I can't prove to you that the reality of those things are genuine and convincing to me, and I don't expect you to believe it. But I expect you to respect me for trying to be true to what comes from within me, and for reacting to noble stirrings within me. If I fell in love with a woman that that the world considers "fat" and "ugly," I would expect that they should at least respect me for responding to something within me that helps me to see the kind of person she really is. Why can't my deference to something spiritual be the same type of thing? Why do you and they expect me to think the way **they** think?
I'm not asking you to think the way I do. Originally, my hubs were designed to give others that think and believe like me an uplift. My original goal for coming to this discussion was to - not have people think like me, but - to demonstrate that Winston based his paradoxes on a faulty premise. Later, I saw what he was doing, and I understood his reasoning, and relented. What more is wanted?
Gosh, Sam. You have really put me in my place. I have no idea what kind of person you are. I really don't care either. I wasn't trying to make it personal. Believe what you will and enjoy.
(But when adults learn to question things and reason, why do they keep repeating the same old lies?)
Austinstar,
I am convinced it fills some emotional or psychological need - what that is I have no idea.
Barry Ritholtz, who is CEO of Fusion IQ, a money manager, and author, wrote about cognitive biases the other day and he said that study after study shows that audiences prefer to hear someone who is adamant, event if known to be wrong, over someone who admits to not knowing.
Psychology - powerful stuff.
(I was just presenting evidence based on my own experience, and on the experience of others whose stories I believe, because I trust them.)
Sam,
I hope you realize my comment was not a direct criticism of you but a general criticism of this type belief - that the magical can somehow be known. Really, what evidence can a single cardinal present of the afterlife and what deseased, non-baptised babies situation is?
It is so incredibly nonsensical as to be beyond absurd.
I used your quote because although I understand you thing you have compelling reasons to believe, I do not understand why a person of your obvious intelligence cannot see that any evidence cannot be objective - it is all authoritative hearsay - opinion of some ancient charismatic leader who convinced others that he was right.
(Austin, I have not said that there is definitely a heaven. You said that there is definitely NO heaven. Therefore, I don't have to prove there is a heaven because of my language. It's **you** who has to prove there is no heaven, because of the definitive language you used.)
Sam,
Sorry to butt in here but I think this is critical. You are making the error of reification even claiming heaven is a possibility - don't get angry, as this same error is made by all religionists, mathematicians, philosophers, neo-scientists, mathematical-physicists, and quantum priests.
Let me explain: the problem lies in how we know and understand reality. As you say, we cannot know for certain about heaven, and I agree. What we can know for certain is whether or not heaven is a reality-based place or simply a suggested possibility. In other words, is heaven an object or a concept?
We have to start with basics. We only know for sure (as close as we can get to sure) that things that have shape and a location are real things, ball, tree, banana, plantet, etc. We don't have to see these things, we can asssume (hypothesize) them, i.e., let us assume planet x exists at a distance beyond our scope of visualizing...everyone knows what we mean by the word planet, a round ball of matter that has a specific location. An object is something that needs no label. We can point and grunt at an apple and the observer will know what pointer means. That is an object.
The other side of this coin is the land of concepts. Concepts require a definition or the word means absolutely nothing. Can we point our finger and grunt about heaven, love, faith, hope?
These are abstractions, abstract concepts really.
If you suggest an abstract concept may exist, then the onus is on you always to show how that might be. How does hope turn into an object with shape and location that we can point at? Do we have an equal understanding when we say the hope in the bottom of the well as if when we say the bucket in the bottom of the well?
It doesn't.
Once again, in order to talk sensibly to one another, we have to define words: exist, that which has shape and location. Objects exist. Concepts do not exist. This is consistent not only in usage but in our understanding of nature and reality - we stump our toe on rocks, but never once have you stumped your toe over a lump of heaven.
This is why we can say heaven does not exist. On the other hand, if you claim it might, then what is its shape and where is it located? You don't know? Then all it can be is a potential place - and by induction the chance of heaven being real would seem to be infitesimal.
But, believe what you want. I stick to a more reasonable assumptions.
SamboRambo's mind is still choking over the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. All statements are presented "forcefully" and it has nothing to do with whether they should be stated. If you claim there IS something, the burden of proof is on YOU. You can't try to shift the Burden of Proof and say someone has to prove there is NOT that thing. Why? Because too many things don't have to be proven false to be, in fact, false. We know there are no blue unicorns; we don't have to turn up every rock from here to the Himalayas to be sure we won't find one, in miniature form, yelling at us, "Hey, man! Why did you stick that mother big rock over me?" Talking animals, it is to laugh, right? Yet an account of talking animals is what every U.S. president swears over at his inauguration. "I pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States and a religion full of talking animals!"
Also, if you whittle down standards of proof down to that low level, the person believing something diametrically opposite to your belief ALSO has the same "out", the same excuse not to justify his belief. That is not a good way to live. It is cultural and social stagnation. Whereas if you learn to use your mind CORRECTLY, you resolve what's real and what's unreal with greater efficiency, you don't waste your limited time on false trails, so you realize: X-rays true, God false, electrons true, God false, cellphones with quantum electron circuitry true, God still false...
By the way, every REAL discovery in science had roots to it, it did not come fully formed. We had magnetic "lodestones" attracting iron for thousands of years before we worked out magnetic forces. We had balloons for a century before the Wright brothers. Every REAL discovery has roots; where are the "roots" of spirituality, the "tricks" and "powers" we should be able to do, the Create-o-wave ovens to make free food?
Winston, perhaps the cardinals were making a decision based - not on what might be arbitrarily decided or on some hoped-for evidence, but - on some scripture or insight into a scripture or related occurrence that one of them might have had to bring to the table (just guessing). Viewed from a distance, it does seem absurd. But I usually don't like to judge something unless I am able to attend the particular event, or talk to someone who attended it. I used to judge things based on my impressions or my own experiences, but after I found out more details, I usually found I was wrong in the motive behind the event.
Thank you for attributing intelligence to me, though I'd say most of it is experience for having a long life.
You wondered why I can't see..... But I **can** see, as evidenced by my capitulation on this hub and on my own, when I was trying to suggest we all knew that Jesus at least existed.
It has all taught me to try to expand my horizons so that my arguments might include the views of those opposed to my ideas. As far as relying on some charismatic leader in bygone ages, I have my reservations, but I stay where I am based on the spiritual things that happened to me, as explained above. When I talk about the innocent not really suffering, the stories I presented are not from some charismatic leader, but from my own experiences, readings, and from friends I trust.
(But I usually don't like to judge something unless I am able to attend the particular event, or talk to someone who attended it.)
Sam,
Some things can be judged on the merit of the underlying idea. I never attended a meeting led by Hitler - but the white supremacy that underwrote his beliefs was vile, and is still vile.
Likewise, the idea than man can have the slightest inkling of what may happen to any creature once that creature's physical body expires is simply stupid.
I don't have to judge the men as stupid to know the reason they are collected together is a stupid idea.
They are gathered because some authority wanted it done, not because a bunch of smart people reasoned that they could actually know anything about the afterlife.
That makes sense; I know I'll never attend a KKK meeting to see if they have any noble goals.
paradox 1
If there were never any bad things people would never discover their need for God. Man had perfection, in the garden and blew it, man since has wanted to rule his own life. God gave them over to that. This is what love does instead of making captive and bullying people into subjection, it lets them choose, even at great loss to itself.
Paradox 2
The miracle route has been tried and it does not bring relationship. Many months after a miracle healing of a limb that person resorts back to their sinful ways. If God created a pollution free planet, eventually, someone would pollute and then? should God smite. If you think about it a pollution free planet would mean completely different technology, etc... and still would not get mankind into a relationship with God, rather, God would be taken for granted and misused by a great number of the worlds population. No, it is best to deal with individuals and let each do their own thing whether they find God or not.
paradox 3
Why does the virgin birth have to mentioned in all the gospels? Each gospel speaks to a different audience, from a different background. They each give slants on 71 days of jesus 3.5 yrs ministry. Indeed much is left out and apparently the world would not be able to contain all the books of all the stuff that Jesus did, a metaphorical idiom but a huge amount of stuff, nevertheless. John speaks to the church at large and his gospel is much different than the other three witnesses. Mark speaks to the Romans. They enjoy text that is action and result oriented. Hence no genealogy which is important to the Jews and Matthew contains.
There are no contradictions and the bias you speak of is on the heathens part when they refuse to accept the explanations that clearly eradicate any and all contradictions.
I just recently eradicated the Nicodemus problem you had by introducing the Jewish perspective on those scriptures. You can find it here:
brother - "If there were never any bad things people would never discover their need for God."
If there were never any bad things people would never need God.
And that is that.
brotheryochanan,
Thank you once again for confirming my positions with your comments. It is somewhat amazing how consistent you are: I write about it; you do it.
None of your assertions from your creative artistic liberties perception come anywhere close to matching the simplicity and elegance of the paradox ending hypothesis: there is no god.
But thanks for playing, Let's Pretend We Can Know the Unknowable!
Attaboy Winston. I daresay your hypothesis, the stone that these Christians are knee-jerkedly [is that a word? Only on HubPages!] rejecting, turns out to be the Cornerstone! Its flexibility, its ability to encompass the whole talking-animal Christian stories, its ability to pierce through paradoxes like a God "lovingly" leaving us alone to suffer (or to increase our lifespan, education and comfort OUR way, by those evil secularists!), seems unmatched!
Given a choice between Being Told [capital letters] tall tales about how God is so loving he'll turn his face from us forever, nobody, not even religious leaders in the Holy of Holies (Billy Graham's video studio control-room) ever get to see his face, we go on getting our ailments and lung-cancers and deaths because this God LOVES us so, and the alternative that there ISN'T any God so we'd better free up our time wasted believing in one to be able to work on our problems ourselves, what would a sane non-masochistic person pick? I mean, really?
Austinstar and Pierre,
It is amazing to me how hard one has to work to make the ideas of religion even halfway believable - and how otherwise intelligent-seeming people can be so caught up in the game of rationalization/justifying beliefs is beyond my ability to explain.
And if you don't accept their delusions, you are either being tricked by the enemy Satan or you don't have enough faith.
They accept their delusions, but cannot understand reason. I have seen this over and over. Learning by rote seems to be the way to go for Christians and other religionists.
They cannot see a paradox even if it was born of a virgin.
Can someone please explain how torturing and killing a 'son of man' on a cross explains how God "saved" the world?
(Can someone please explain how torturing and killing a 'son of man' on a cross explains how God "saved" the world?)
Austinstar,
It starts like this: Once upon a time...
If there were "psychic energies" involved in torturing and killing people that somehow could make amazing changes to the world, maybe that explains how they found Osama bin Laden. The CIA kept torturing homeless guys in one of their sub-sub-sub-basements until the answer in clear GPS co-ordinates magically came to their brains! It's all in EXACTLY how you nail people's hands to wood, apparently!
Well, that's quite a trick for sure. But apparently the whole world didn't get saved anyway, so all that pain for nothing.
Hey folks! I thought it was decided that the "paradoxes" (1 and 3) were based on subjective premises, and that they weren't designed to show incontrovertible evidences that there is no god. But your language continues on as if they *do* prove there is no god. Using terms like "tall tales" and "delusions" is not consistent with your final explanation to me, Winston.
(Using terms like "tall tales" and "delusions" is not consistent with your final explanation to me, Winston.)
Sam,
Sorry, but if you really want to get picky there is no incontrovertible proof of anything. I can confidently say O.J. Simpson was guilty, but if the jury believed he was not guilty then they accepted all sorts of rationalizations to explain the evidence - including the explanation that the LA police department planted about 5 gallons of his blood all over the crimes scene, his car, the back fence, the cuts on his hands were not relevant to that blood.
You keep asking me to prove your beliefs wrong - whereas I am offering evidence based on reason that you reject.
Just as it is reasonable to say that the O.J. jury deluded itself into accepting an implausible explanation, it is equally reasonable to offer words like delusional about the creation an unverified correlation or worse, causation, between actual world events and an abstract concept. It is hard enough to determine correlation and causation in the real world; to even think it can be done between reality and imagined reality is goofy.
Son of Sam claimed he killed because the neighbor's dog told him to do it. We accept that as a delusion as humans understand dogs cannot talk.
The bible claims a burning bush talked - how is that anything other than delusional?
You have claimed there is interference to eliminate human suffering done by an invisible, immaterial spuerpowerful entity - and yet that claim cannot be described as delusional?
Actually, of the three, you claim is the most outrageous. We know dogs exist and produce audible sounds. We know bushes and fire are real. What part of invisible, immaterial, superpowerful entity do we have objective data for that suggests even a possibility of existence?
Humans are world champions at finding correlations - that really don't exist. We are hard-wired that way. That is why believers accept stories that validate their beliefs - they accept a correlation with a positive outcome and ignore all negative or neutral outcomes. This has to do with confirmation bias.
Prayer has undergone scrutiny by numerous clinical tests - the vast majority of those tests found zero evidence that prayer affects health. The only times it was shown to be of benefit were in poorly constructed studies based on subjective statements about rating pain levels or nausea levels where other more plausible explanations were equally as likely.
Again, if someone want to objectively find out if prayer works as advertised in the bible, then collect a bunch of amputees and pray their limbs regrowth.
The conclusion of the hub stands: all Christian paradoxes can be easily and succinctly desposed of by the hypothesis that there is no god.
To state a delusional aspect to belief must always be based on opinion - but it is opinion based on a reasoned approach to defining reality versus imaginary (which encompasses hoped for or possibilities.)
You are free to believe your beliefs are not delusional. But I would venture to say that you do not accept the proposal that a man in a cave climbed onto the back of a winged mule and flew to heaven - we understand this is impossible and thus requires the interventions of a magical cause: an angel or god. Yet at the same time, Christians believe that a man who has been truly dead and rotting for in his grave for three days can come back to life, and that idea is equally impossible - unless you specifically propose a magical intervention: god dun it.
To assert any magical, mystical as a cause is unreasonable and most likely self-delusion.
Sam,
I thought of another tact to explain why I use the word delusional in respect to religious beliefs: Pet Semetary.
The Stephen King novel portrays a particular piece of Maine that has magical powers to restore the dead.
There is no doubt that everyone other than the killer would understand the self-delusion if a man slaughtered his child and buried him in Maine because he believed Pet Semetary by Stephen King was a holy book, and he wanted to prove that the boy would return from the dead.
However, if you change the title and propose that a man can be killed, buried for three days, and then because of magical powers be restored to life you have: God Semetary.
The only separation between book #1 and book #2 is the logical fallacy of appeal to common understanding used to validate #2.
Roughly 25% of the world's population believes #2, and that is more than any other specific belief. But it still leaves 75% who don't accept the story.
Maybe Stephen King should rewrite the story.
Lots of authors, in the centuries during Christian oppression, poked fun at the Christian faith by making allusions to supernatural things in their own stories. Jonathan Swift wrote GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, and in the third book set in Laputa he talked about the Struldbrugs, people whom Gulliver hears about who are immortal. He thinks they are fortunate, until they arrange to have him meet some. Pathetic creatures growing old, wrinkled, blind and deaf, spending much of their days screaming in rage. They grow ever-forgetful as the days in darkness and silence displace and crush their memories from young, healthy days. Infinite life is not worthwhile unless it is explained how we are going to overcome certain practical limitations about the body and the mind.
Winston, after all your eloquent reasoning in allowing you to use "tall tales" and "delusional," I still don't see where you have "proven" that no god exists.
Like I said before, the thousand dollars still stands as a reward for such proof. If you can't do it, then why describe theists in terms that make them look inferior to you?
In reality, I'm not asking you to prove your point. All I'm asking is that you act a little more considerate for theists. You can blast those that kill in the name of their theistic or spiritual claims, but remember that atheists also commit murders and atrocities as well.
Shall I start blasting people that think like you and use terms such as "close-minded," "suspicious," "lazy" and "excuse-prone?" Shall I start declaring to the world that you don't want to pay tithings or offerings, therefore you "rationalize" away the concepts of the spiritual? Shall I accuse you of thinking only of yourself and not your neighbor? You may tell me you are more charitable to your neighbor than most Christians you know, but just as you don't believe my claims that there is spiritual intervention in my life, I can reciprocate and choose not to believe you. Or, I can state that you are charitable to others as merely a token of proof that you don't need a church to invite you to do this. Therefore you are selfish, and you depend on your own supposed ability to create paradoxes (that are in reality not sound) in spiritual matters to rationalize your laziness. You don't build, you tear down others. This world would be a better place if people like you gave other people more credit for their ideals.
Okay, if I'm wrong in judging you, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm talking like that to show how it feels when you and your friends use similar accusations against me and my kind.
I don't mind if you continue your dialogue showing why you don't believe in a god or in spiritual intervention, or in talking bushes and fire. But why degrade those who do? Why not use "claims" instead of tall tales? You could even say "...they **appear** delusional" rather than label them as delusional? The kind of talk you use makes others more defensive, and does not foster a more benign exchange. I think you could get people to talk more philosophy if you gave them a little credit and didn't attack them personally. If you look back, you'll notice I haven't talked like you, while expressing my own opinions. Perhaps for this reason, Chasuk labeled me more sincere, or at least considered responding to my questions.
Austin said she wasn't being personal. Well, I'm sorry but "if it looks like a rose and smells like a rose, then it's a rose."
How much of an idiot do you want to be, SamboRambo? We keep explaining and explaining to you that SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS A FALLACY! It is false no matter WHAT the subject.
It doesn't gain credibility if you're talking about God. If you want to convince us of God, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide POSITIVE PROOF IN FAVOR. It is NOT our responsibility to DISprove you, although the many incongruities in the Bible like talking animals should have given you a clue. You can't prove the least of the nonsensical things in the Bible such as that talking donkeys or snakes existed, and you are quite bereft of proof in the really Big Lies like invisible all-powerful gods, yet you EXPECT people to believe your twisted little religion. It boggles the imagination. Your brain is clearly inferior if you want to rely on your very life for things that have no proof at all, for a bizarre fantasy-world that apparently ignorant Semitic shepherds saw but you are denied even a GLIMPSE of. You are denied ANY contact with the supernatural, yet go on believing it and it is your way of feeling superior to shepherds in rubbing your hands together and saying, "I'll be mightily rewarded for believing in a God I could never experience or sense. Oh, yes, I'll earn the Kingdom and be at the right hand of the Angry Whipping Jesus himself, above those lesser mortals who saw talking donkeys and withering fig-trees and therefore had no strength of faith." Such twisted reasoning falls away if you but accept Winston's SIMPLE, SIMPLE solution to the paradoxes: no God, spirits or souls. How hard is THAT to believe?
Uhm....Pierre, who said anything about wanting proof?
Good "hub!" Great read Winston!
Very well organized and well written, but the logic falters, cuz, what the hell is this god thing ya'll are yakking about.....God? GOD???.........??
Qwark
Sam, you said, "Like I said before, the thousand dollars still stands as a reward for such proof. If you can't do it, then why describe theists in terms that make them look inferior to you?"
So YOU said something about wanting proof.
(All I'm asking is that you act a little more considerate for theists.)
Sam,
I understand your position, but understand that I am not attacking you personally and saying you are inferior. In fact, if you followed my comments and my other hubs you would understand that I consistently say that all humans are equal in their humanity. There is variation in species, and intelligence is such a variation, but I am not about to claim a superior position due to the vagaries of natural selection that may have made me more or less intelligent than anyone else.
What I am attacking is the belief and the basis for that belief.
Keep in mind, Sam, it is you who elects your reations to what I say. I cannot cause you to feel one way or another or to believe one way or another. I have no control over you. All I can do is present the argument and hope you will make you own decision that my position is more reasoble than your current beliefs.
You can feel free to say anything you wish about me as I am free to not allow it to bother me - and it doesn't.
What bothers me is that there are some people who want to force me and the citizens of the country where I live to adhere to their belief system. The reason they do this is becasue of irrational and delusional belief systems.
You and others like you are not those people - but your beliefs allows their beliefs to foster. If moderate and liberale Christians were doing their duty by shouting down the ignorant fundamentalists, then maybe I could go back to ignoring them.
But once Jerry Falwell declared war on reason with his Moral Majority and invaded the political arena, then the gloves come off.
If you are caught in the crossfire, too bad. But I didn't start this fight.
Quark,
Thanks for stopping in - I was afraid the hub would be too "upbeat" for you. :-))
Winston:
...way over my head! :-)
Qwark
(The kind of talk you use makes others more defensive, and does not foster a more benign exchange. I think you could get people to talk more philosophy if you gave them a little credit and didn't attack them personally.)
Sam,
You have been cordial, and I don't mind answering your query.
I was reared from birth in a strict evangelical Christian environment. I believed until cognitive dissonance forced me to abandon belief. This was not a particularly pleasant experience - kind of like dying and remolding reself sans self-image.
I know the arguments. I also know they are baseless. I also know that no Christian choses to believe because it is the rational thing to do or because there is such a good argument for believing. So why debate the philosophical? We've been going around that merry-go-round for centuries.
The only thing I've found to penetrate the veil of denial is embarrassment. I expect defensiveness from believers as there is no sound argument to make in response to reason. If you notice, the arguments always fall into a pattern of rationalizations based on scriptures or similar pleas to authority.
I don't care if the debate withers - my goal is to intill the seed of cognitive dissonance. After that, it is up to the person.
Austin, you said I asked for proof in offering a $M. That wasn't the point in my saying that. Read it more carefully.
Winston, the reason I said you could cut down on your adjectives, is because of my experience with you: I think we could have saved a lot of time if you had talked sense (like you did 6 days ago, beginning with "Let me first...") in the first place, without sounding so dogmatic or biased.
You are influencing your sympathizers to attack me. Their attacks seem to be inspired by you, although you didn't teach them how to bark up the right tree. I imagine this to be embarrassing to them when I point that out. So what is your attitude doing to your sympathizers, indirectly? Their misguided attacks causes others to make conclusions that are incorrect. It's just a growing mess of misunderstandings and free-for-all judgments that accomplish nothing.
Maybe I chose the wrong word in using "philosophize."
Nice article. Religion seems to be the hot topic on this site. I am not an atheist; yet neither am I a 'believer'. Primarily due to the points you detailed in your article. Whatever the answer may ultimately prove to be, religion has done a fantastic job of muddying the waters.
(Religion seems to be the hot topic on this site.)
Emile R,
You bring up a good point. Religion has not always been such a volatile area. I think most of it comes from the militancy established by the likes of Jeffy Falwell and his Moral Majority along with Pat Robertson and his 700 Club that has morphed into what is loosely defined now as the Christain Right.
When ideological-driven elements start trying to alter secular governments with institutions like The Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture which (at least at first and to themselves) somewhat openly admitted having reasons to act that were strictly religious based, then there is going to be a pushback from those who recognize the critical nature of secularity in government as protection for all.
Thanks for your comment.
(You are influencing your sympathizers to attack me. Their attacks seem to be inspired by you, although you didn't teach them how to bark up the right tree.)
Sam,
I cannot control the actions of anyone. Neither can you. Attempted control is the basis for all malcontent the world knows - it ain't the devil, unless the devil is the self-centeredness of humans to try to control their environment.
I don't have sympathizers. They are simply people who, like me, do not accept "it's magic" as a valid answer for mysteries.
Seriously, Sam, expecting a civil reception for the expressed idea that "it is magic" is a valid assumption and on par with a demand for evidence and reasoning is expecting too much from the human ape - you can expect to be personally treated with respect as a fellow human, but the idea "it is magic" is not a thing, is not a part of your ego, and thus an attack on the idea does not represent a personal atttack.
From experience, I understand that often with theists the belief and the person are almost inseparable, and that is part of the difficulty in overcoming those biases.
On the other hand, the secularist understands that what is being proposed is an idea only, that evidence and reasoning can alter those ideas, and thus it is quite silly to become too married to any one particular point of view other than to consider it valid for now.
It is frustration I think that causes the occasional loss of cool, as it is difficult-to-impossible for many of us to understand how a claim of dualism can be considered as valid as one of naturalism, when there is zero objective evidence of anything other than naturalism.
This really gets down to the debate made about ID in the class - the IDiots are not trying to make ID into science, but to lower the standards of science to equal religious beliefs, and thus make them equals in the eyes of the courts and the court of public opinion.
But where would we be as humans if every time humankind had cast our collective eyes on a mystery of nature - such as how disease is caused and spread - and instead of trying to find out simply tossed up our hands and declared, "it must be magic"?
Then centuries later, after all the objective evidence that these two claims are unequal, to demand equal treatment for both claims simply seems ludicrous and honestly, not overly bright.
Which is another paradox: why do intelligent people prefer to believe the nonsensical over the reasonable?
I thik the answer lies in what I alluded to before, where Barry Ritholtz of Fusion IQ stated that study after study shows that humans prefer to listen to someone who speaks authoritatively but incorrectly to someone who admits to not knowing.
Call it authority bias: a forceful application of "it's magic" is better accepted than an honest, "we don't know."
Sam, I don't need to read things more carefully. You need to say things more carefully.
(And, BTW, your statement "I can explain and eliminate all three paradoxes with 4 simple words: there is no god"
is not based on scientific proof: it's an opinion)
Hi, Sam,
I'm reaching way back for this quote but I wanted to address it. You are completely right that it is opinion, and I don't think I ever implied that it was anything other than opinion.
What I have said it that it is a better opinion, a more valid opinion, and it rests on better reasoning and induction than does Christian theism.
And it isn't even close, because I do not have to rely on anything outside the known for my position - whereas theism must claim dualism, which is simply another word for mysticism - aka magic.
For example, I hear a sound like a backfire from a car, a glass window shatters, and the wall opposite is hit with a thud and a small round hole appears instantly in the wall. I reason by induction that it is likely that someone fired a gun and the bullet shattered the window.
The theist, meanwhile, sits with his eyes closed, his fingers in his ears, singing praises and when the window breaks opens his eyes and shouts out, "Look! It's a miracle."
Like I said - not even close.
I'll start from the latest, and work backwards:
Winston, you say I would attribute a gunshot to "a miracle?" You don't give me much credit.
Austin, I was very careful in how I worded that phrase; I did it to get someone's attention and to make a point. I'd do it again the same way if asked to repeat myself.
"I cannot control the actions of anyone...."
Winston, you CAN and you ARE. People always do so, often inadvertently. Hubbard wrote a novel, and now people have made a religion out of it, and called it "Scientology."
(Winston, you say I would attribute a gunshot to "a miracle?" You don't give me much credit.)
Sam,
Let's be factual. I used an analogy to show how theists are capable of ignoring the conclusions of inductive reasoning and end up with magical explanations.
It is not you I give little credit to - it is the idea of magical explanations that gets zero credit.
"Attempted control is the basis for all malcontent the world knows..."
Winston, I did not use the word "control," but "influence." This makes me question your ability to assimilate concepts correctly. But as knowledgeable and well-read as you are, I'm surprised you don't know that you have the capacity to influence people, even inadvertently.
"Let's be factual. I used an analogy to show how theists are capable of..."
Winston, I kind-a knew you'd give that clarifying response. And I know why you used the bullet-hole example. I accused you of under-estimating me to show how you've done the same thing: ignored my examples, or misunderstood them, which - in turn - caused you to make a judgment about me or my beliefs.
("I cannot control the actions of anyone...."
Winston, you CAN and you ARE)
Sam,
If what I write makes sense to someone else, that hardly makes me responsible for their thinking. This illusion of the ability to control or influence is the root of every evil known to man. Beliefs and actions based on those beliefs can never be forced or coerced onto another adult.
Contentment comes with the ability to accept the world as it is without trying to alter circumstances that you cannot control. Malcontentment breeds attempts to control. Reasoning is simply a method of expressing ideas by way of critical thinking - it is not meant to influence but to clarify. All logic is tautology - it is the premises that are the heart of a debate - the logic is simply the means to express an idea coherently without contradictions. It never makes the argument right or sound - only valid within the argument itself. Logic does not conflate to reality and vice versa. Reality is simply binary; something is or something isn't regardless of proofs or the ideas of human ape sentient beings.
The only thing humans can control is our own actions and reactions.
(caused you to make a judgment about me or my beliefs.)
I only know what you write. You could be lying, playing devil's advocate, or have some other reason for your replies.
I thought I had made the position as clear as it can possibly be made: dualism is an appeal to magic that I reject out of hand as mysticism - an appeal to imaginary what if possiblities of logic that have no bearing on reality. If god is, then god is. But we can never know if that is reality because our only means of discovery is compromised by our own sensory system and mental capacities. The best we can do is made an eductated guess about reality - and to make a guess that is equivalent to a Dark Ages explanation is abundantly less reasonable than a guess based on current understanding and knowledge.
I gave rational, exceedingly simple, and clear explanations as to why my viewpoint is a stronger induction than the mystical viewpoint.
I have already weighed the mystical viewpoint and found it lacking.
As I have said over and over, if there cannot be concrete, objective evidence provided that a god is a reality, then the rational and reasonable assumption is that there is no god.
If someone else wishes to posit a god, then the onus is on them to explain the rationality of that god and offer objective evidence of the interaction of god with reality.
I have yet to find a dualistic believer of miracles or believer in the power of prayer accept the offer to regrow an amputee's missing limb.
Until someone does, the rationalizations and subjective evidences for belief are no better than Dark Ages beliefs in witches, warlocks, and evil-eye-caused crop failures.
I cannot make it any more clear than that. I reject Dark Ages mentality in favor of the Age of Enlightenment. To do otherwise is to abandon centuries of human achievement in order to sustain myth.
"If someone else wishes to posit a god, then the onus is on them to explain the rationality of that god..."
Winston, you've done it again: You always miss the point of what I'm saying. This time, you think I'm accusing you of using your conclusions to influence people. That's not what I said. I said that the **language** you use - those derogatory adjectives that describe theists - is causing others to join in with similar - and worse - adjectives, and they jump in too fast, because they've been riled up by the pigeon-holing you do. This results in a misunderstanding. It accomplishes nothing and wastes time. I've got better things to do than to continually set things straight. I had hoped to make our interchanges more productive by suggesting cordiality, but it looks like this can't be accomplished with the mentality on this forum.
I run two forums elsewhere with YahooGroups. I've been able to use my influence to eliminate the type of language you use here. It's amazing how people of two opposing viewpoints can have a meaningful dialogue in that setting. I was a member of another group where your type of language was used, and the only thing ever accomplished was accusations and name-calling. For this reason, it had to be discontinued.
If the pigeon-holing is accurate, what grounds do you have to complain about it? We're not going to restrict language for YOUR benefit. Prove your case, or get the hell out.
(Well, I'm sorry but "if it looks like a rose and smells like a rose, then it's a rose.")
Sam,
Curious, as this is the same reason I used the word "delusional", to which you object.
Beside playing nice, there is also the concept of a level playing field.
But let me point more specifically to the assertions that made me smell delusion.
(My father concluded that God knew)
(But I'm convinced He knows)
(I said that God DID correct some important misprints)
Sorry, but belief that a human can have knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of a supernatural entity is delusional thinking. It doesn't simply appear to be delusional.
Sam Harris made this point clear when he wrote about the Church sponsored gathering of cardinals to determine what happens to non-baptised babies after they die.
Can there be a more ridiculous or arrogant use of time than to contemplate and create a ruling about that which is totally and completely unknowable? Isn't the Church itself deluded about its ability to divine this knowledge?
What if instead of the Catholic Church the gathering would have been of Muslims - to determine what happens to non-Muslim babies after they die - would those at that gathering then have been delusional?
What about the claim of knowledge of a spaceship in the tail of a comet? Was that delusional?
At what point does the assumption that the unknowable can be known or divined become rational instead of delusional? Is it determined by vote? What telephone number do I dial to vote, "NO"?
At the same time, implying a position and then later denying that position because it was not implicitly stated is a disingenuous use of semantics. I would rather someone call me a moron to my face than to say you appear moronic and then later deny an insult was intended. The latter is a type of passive-aggressiveness.
I prefer straightforward to dallying around. I am also uninterested in playing "what if" games of imagined and remote possibilties.
There is no point in having a reasonable discussion about how the woman down the street was cursed with leprosy while at the market because the old hag who lives on Maple Street cast an evil eye spell on her.
Medicine now understands the cause of leprosy and has ruled out witches.
What is so valuable about other Dark Ages holdover ideas that I should want to seriously consider the post hoc rationalizations offered for continued unwarranted belief in them?
All I can do is hold open the door of reason - I cannot force anyone to walk through it.
Pierre, my arguments are for the benefit of all of us. If I want to benefit, and save more time, I just stop commenting here, and go elsewhere. So you missed the point again.
"Sorry, but belief that a human can have knowledge of the inner workings of the mind of a supernatural entity is delusional thinking."
1: You can know a little bit through his commo to you.
2: You pretend to know by the premise you proferred.
Gotta go. More, later.
(1: You can know a little bit through his commo to you.)
(2: You pretend to know by the premise you proferred.)
Sam,
As to #1, it is begging the question. Before there can be words from a superbeing there must be the presupposition that the superbeing exists to offer those words.
As to #2, I agree completely that the premise is the basis for the conclusion - it would be illogical to offer a different conclusion based on that premise, would it not?
The arguments, after all, are based on non-acceptance of each other's premises. It is simple to construct a valid argument based on a whimsical premise, so conclusions are pretty much irrelevant. What is critical is the method of identification of a valid premise or hypothesis.
But we are not talking about logics here, but about inductive reasoning and the power of reason to measure the probabilities of likelihoods. The probability of the impossible is zero - of the magic-dependent is close to the same, unless it can be shown that magic is part of reality.
Magic could be included as part of reality with concrete evidence - like prayer reestablishing the missing limb of an amputee or moving the Matterhorn to Manhattan.
Without that type of evidence, though, there is no worthwhile evidence to include in the induction process. Any other evidence is hearsay - and there is a reason hearsay evidence is not allow in judicial proceedings: because it cannot be challenged for accuracy.
The hearsay inadmissability in court is not based on the lack of realiability of the testimony but on the fact that there can be no cross-examination of the witness who provides the claim.
You have stated that your father concluded why god acted as he supposedly did. Is your father infallible? How could I know for sure why god acted, or even if there is a god to act, without the ability to talk to the witness (god) face to face and ask questions?
All of religious belief is based on hearsay evidence provided by what is assumed to be authoritative witnesses. But none of these witnesses can say, here is a hand-written note from god that you can test or I had dinner last night with god and here is the photographic evidence or here is a sample of god's DNA to compare with human DNA.
Without objective evidence, there is simply no difference in claiming the reality of god and claiming the reality of a leprechaun.
The only difference occurs in the mind of the believer who accepts the authoritative admonissions that there is a god but who rejects the less well-received idea of leprechauns.
As an example, we could both be involved in a seance during which a picture on the wall falls to the ground. We may each reach a different conclusion as to why the picture fell, based on our premise. One person could attribute the motion to spirits attempting communication while the other person could attribute it to the actions of gravity over time and a less-than-secure apparatus to hold the picture in place.
The second conclusion is by far the more reasonable as it is based on a more secure premise that has objective evidence as backup.
Humans are phychologically hard-wired to attribute actions to agents, and then introduce a reason for those supposed agents to act as they did - we anthropomorphisize human actions and motivations because that is how we interact with the world. A rock, on the other hand, does not roll downhill on its own based on rock and roll motivations, and a rock does not believe Elvis is alive, either.
Now, back to the seance. If the picture jumped off the wall, hovered in the air for a minute, then flew against the opposite wall and smashed then we might well have a case of spooky stuff happening, as the actions of the picture violate known laws of physics. Of course, we would still have to rule out trickery (see Uri Geller and James Randi) but it would not be nearly so implausible to propose a supra-natural explanation for the event.
The problem is, this type evidence is only displayed by way of hearsay, never directly. We have the claim that someone who did not witness the event states that water was turned into wine - when what we need to do is witness this event and interview the person responsible.
(again, see Uir Geller versus James Randi as to why this is necessary).
To accept the word of the non-witness witness is to have faith. But faith is not a reasonable premise upon which to establish a conclusion or base an inductive belief.
"...let me point more specifically to the assertions that made me smell delusion.
" '(My father concluded that God knew...' "
Your subsequent explanation helped me to see why you use that word; When I offered that story, I had still not understood your slant, but now I do. Although I may disagree with your usage of that word in my case or my father's case, I can see why "delusional" fits the general actions of theists based on your experience.
Based on my experience, "delusional" is a tricky word. I can grant - even to the Muslims - that I don't consider them delusional. For the most part, I believe them to be using all available data as best they can, as they know nothing else. From what I understand, Mohammed taught some truths. Also, the Muslims believe in Abraham. Abraham taught truths. When words from "authoritative leaders," as you put it, are consistent with events in the experience of the believers, then they would naturally consider this as authenticizing their religion. But when something bad comes out of it, like 911, I don't give blame to the religion, but to those who interpreted it, or who prostituted it.
If you still say all theist beg the definition of "delusional," I say that doesn't make them idiots.
I feel I've been able to incorporate a more objective observance of subjective phenonema than the normal "biased" theist. Because of that, I feel a little offended when people think I'm among those who - without much thought attribute such to "miracles that support or prove their faith." Often I'm not offended, because I know how to consider the source. But Another thing that tends to happen, is that because I'm labeled "delusional," I'm therefore assumed to not be able to contribute something meaningful to an important project that requires objective prowess. This "mentality" has been shown here, in the usage of such terms and "IDiots," etcetera.
Your other explanations above are mostly a recap of why you accept only the explainable, something I already accepted. My latest complaints, as you undoubtedly realize by now, is over attitude. But your scholarly attitude for these last two comments fosters less defensiveness, and more constructive dialogue.
So - as far as being constructive now - what can be done next? You said had people listened to this type of logic, perhaps there would not have been a 911. I'm with you on contributing to the prevention of such things in the future. If we fight over silly things and do name-calling, we might not be able to unite our energies and forces to create a safer world.
I would guess one thing you might say is to not trust someone in politics or who is in control who depends on their religion. Or, not elect anyone is a theist. Or, you might say that nothing can be done. If nothing, then why cry over it?
BTW, I really don't know what you meant when you rebutted my 1 & 2 refutations over knowing the mind of an ethereal god.
Someone's at the door; I didn't proof-read this, so I might have to make disclaimers later.
(If you still say all theist beg the definition of "delusional," I say that doesn't make them idiots.)
Sam,
I would hope I would never say anything so crass. There is a significant difference among the words ignorant, stupid, and delustional. In my view, only stupid would be considered insulting.
Atheists can be just a deluded as theists, just not about the concept of god. Ignorance means only a lack of knowledge or education about a subject, and that is simply a description, not an insult.
Sam Harris wrote a book from the atheist point of view where he took to task moderate and liberal theists for fostering a worldview that are to be tolerated, thus allowing fundmental beliefs to pass unchallenged.
I didn't really buy that argument. I did, on the other hand, accept his argument that those with delusional beliefs can see the delusion of others but are blinded to their own.
Really, regardless of what you think of some of the ideas of Muhammad, anyone outside the Muslim belief system can instantly recognize that acceptance of a flying mule that can take a human back and forth between heaven and earth is delusional.
A lot of what you say is accurate, and there is certainly no harm and possibly quite a lot of benefit from a moderate or liberal view of Christianity, where the bible is considered literal or even particularly inerrant.
You may be surprised to learn that my older brother has a Ph.D. in religion. Having read the old testament in its original Hebrew, he will tell you that it is obvious that what you are reading is poetry and morality stories, not meant as a literal history.
His learning started as mine did, in a strict evangelical home, but now he is quite liberal in his views and is a practicing Episcopalian.
I mention this to let you know I understand your frustration at being lumped in with the hardline evangelicals or pentecostals who seem to be prolific on hub pages.
The problem is, the apologetics are quite often the same from moderates as fundamentalists, and so the attack against the apology is the same.
As for proof-reading, I am a self-taught typist with minimal skills and no matter how many times I look my words over I get something screwed up or the timer clicks off before I can make all the changes.
I was raised LDS, left the church for a while, then came back later, as detailed above. What you say about the Bible isn't devastating to me. In my religion, there's the Book of Mormon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that it, too, is a work of fiction, or something other than what it professes to be. But like you said about the Bible and Christianity, something good can come from belief in such. In fact, much evil has been avoided when someone sincere tries to live according to beliefs that tend to build and help people focus outward.
(But like you said about the Bible and Christianity, something good can come from belief in such)
Sam,
Yes, but the good is mainly represented in those who do not deeply believe but who choose to act in accordance with organizational mores.
An abiding belief in magical explanations is harmful in itself, IMO, as rationalizations crimp normal reasoning abilities.
I won't attack the book of Mormon - there are plenty of websites you can investigate if you are interested in seeing those arguements.
In my comment above a critical word was left out. It should have read: A lot of what you say is accurate, and there is certainly no harm and possibly quite a lot of benefit from a moderate or liberal view of Christianity, where the bible is NOT considered literal or even particularly inerrant.
Dear Winston,
This is just a question. If you discount a person who has gone through an actual death of the body experience for a short period of time and told of the existence of God (because science assumes this occurs in the brain due to the lack of blood circulating oxygen.)
Then wouldn't you refute it all the more with that same argument if they came back after three days?
Who else can answer the question better than someone who has come so close?
I am just asking? I am not trying to defend God's existence or provide proof. I was just wondering?
(Then wouldn't you refute it all the more with that same argument if they came back after three days?)
Little Sister,
The short answer is no. Here is why.
The condition you describe in near-death experience is hypoxia, a temporary or permanent shortage of oxygen to cells. This does not require death or even near-death to occur. Many COPD patients as well as cardiac patients can have hypoxia and suffer well-established delirium or delusons or hallucinations due to that condition.
One the other hand there are genuine post death events that occur to the body that makes it very different from near-death. (warning: if you are weak of stomach, do not read on.)
"Putrefaction follows a predetermined timetable in nature and after the first thirty-six hours the neck, the abdomen, the shoulders and the head begin to turn a discoloured green. This is then followed by bloating - an accumulation of gas that is produced by bacteria toiling away within the deceased. This bloating is most visible around the face where the eyes and the tongue protrude as the gas inside pushes them forward.
As the body continues to putrefy skin blisters, hair falls out and the fingernails of the deceased began to sink back into the fingers. These skin blisters are also filled with large amounts of liquid just as in a blister you might get from running or walking too far."
This would be about the position of the corpse after being well and truly dead for 3 days. There is no known process to reverse these breakdowns of tissues and digestion of tissues by bacteria.
The only possible way to say that this 3-day old corpse could be re-animated is either by way of Mary Shelly's method of fictional mad scientists or by proclaiming an unprecedented magical occurence transpired.
Hypoxic-created hallucinations are nowhere near the magic needed to claim this dead tissue came back to life.
Before you can make a claim about what Mr. 3-day dead saw, you have to establish it is possible to resurrect the putrefied flesh of his dead body.
It can only be done in fiction and in magical accounts.
Thanks for your comment.
Little Sister,
A couple more points about the differences between near-death and actual death. In near death, cells are still alive. It is the speed of resucitation that determines how much cellular damage is done.
With death, cells quickly begin to die. Brain cells can only survive undamaged for 5-6 minutes without oxygen. Once CPR stops, the cells die and are non-recoverable. Not all cells die at the same speed. Skin cells can be harvested from a corpse as long as 24 hours after death.
But after 3 days, all the cells in the body are dead and non-recoverably damaged. Many organs self-digest by way of their own enzymatic actions while other cells begin the putrefucation process by being digested by the body's normal bacterial flora.
This is beyond hypoxia - the is death. Hypoxia on occasion can be reversed. Death is non-reversable.
I understand the science I worked as a nurse, and an EMT for many years. And I have sat and with many dying people.
I thank you for your comments, but we can clone body parts and create hearts from the thinest invisible lining of a dead heart that has been totally scraped, being infused with stem cell solutions.
And if you think this is science fiction. You will really trip when you learn that biological matter can be animated.
And that is not even a fraction of what man is able to do. We can create many things. But that is not what we are talking about here. And just because the body is dead. Does not mean it must rot we know how to put this process off for periods of time. 3 days is not at all unthinkable.
I was just wondering if you would still attribute what they had to say to a malfunction of the brain. And I so do appreciate you assuming that I dont understand certain biological processes.
But, I assure you that I most certainly do keep up with what is going on in the medical realm a little more than the average bear. :)
I was just wondering if you would find it valid?
And I am sure that you would be amazed if we were told
That last part was supposed to be erased. Because I decided not to go on with it. Please disregard.
And as I said I am not trying to argue or defend. I was just trying to figure out what would be valid as feasible proof? Not, that I have any that you would consider valid. I do for myself. But, truly all things in this life are perceptual.
I must tell you that I was deceived by the title somewhat. I did not realize what the intent of the hub was.
I clinked on this hub because I thought it would be of value to me but found that it was only much ridicule and defamation of my intelligence as a person.
I am sorry for interjecting in your hub as I can see by all the comments that I hold no true value in your world. But, thank you for taking the time to converse with me. :)
@christiansister: Your most recent comment puzzles me. I'm assuming that you read more than the title before adding your first comment, right? In other words -- as arguably deceptive as the title may be -- you presumably weren't contributing in the dark. Besides, you contributed intelligently, and Winston responded intelligently. Why the sudden regret?
Because I do realize the paradoxes in the Christian religion and I am not a Christian because the Bible tells me so. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible.
I realize that it is manipulated and chaptered and versed by man. And it is used in many cases to condemn and spew hateful words to others. Instead of showing love and compassion and forgiveness as I feel christianity should.
And I own many different books other than the Bible also to try and make sense of it all.
However, I do have personal experiences where I could attribute fantastic things in my life only to God. But those experiences were not because I am "special" or any of that mess. I have been saved from death literally two (definitely) and one (arguably) times. And I have seen death much.
I did not read anything but the actual title from the hub listing. And thought I would find clues to help me in sorting it all out. When I first click here.
But, after reading all the comments and disdain for christians. I still wanted badly to inquire of Winston what does constitute proof?
I read many different things and that most christians dare not read because I am not so "religious" as to shut my mind to other religions or ideas.
But, I have seen my miracles and I do feel in my soul a very personal relationship. Not because I am better than anyone but because of the terrible situations I have been saved out of.
And I was just curious as to what is really viable proof.
The personal experiences I had were not because I am special or any bit better than anybody else. But
I did it again please disregard last sentence.
Speaking only for myself, viable proof is proof which is transmissible and objectively incontrovertible. The reversal of complete bodily putrification meets both of those qualifications. Non-transmissible personal experiences are of no use to me as proof.
I do agree that this would be a miraculous event. I was just wondering if that happened would it be explained away as something else.
It has truly been interesting. And thank you for talking with me Chasuk and Winston (I love your pic) no pun at all he was one of my favorites. But it is my bedtime. Hang tight you guys. :)
I embrace the philosophy of Jesus, while not embracing the fragmented, dogmatic church which has sprung from it, just as I embrace the Wakan knowledge. There is more in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of...including the faith of ultimate scientific morality, which is as much a slippery slope as any other faith based system. Those who are less educated, and incapable or "proving" their favorite mad scientist's theories, simply because they know snit about theoretical physics, pick on ancient writings as the babblings of idiots, while at the same time ignoring the fact that science and religion came from the same slimy pool. I believe that there is something, inextricably incorporated into our reality which, by virtue of it's characteristics alone, has everything associated with mankind on a very precise timetable. Maybe we are the end product of terraforming and colonization. No one has found the alien(s) yet, but that doesn't mean they are not there (And closer than we think) How much more advanced would a being have to be to qualify as God? If most people of one hundred years ago could veiw our world, would they not see US as Gods?
Interesting stuff. But I still say that free will is the answer. If all of your "paradoxes" were to be answered then there would no longer be free will of any kind. We would be slaves and pets and not individual people with choices and responsibilities.
Sorry for the short response
(I thank you for your comments, but we can clone body parts and create hearts from the thinest invisible lining of a dead heart that has been totally scraped, being infused with stem cell solutions.)
Little Sister,
Don't apologize - disagreements are welcomed here provided they are not accompanied by simple and repeated assertions of faith or appeals to scriptural authority.
As long as you can offer you own reasoned disagreements or state clearly any unsupported claim is your faith then I have no problem.
I was trying to answer your question, though. Regardless of what we can do with stem cells in the 21st century, that has no bearing on the decomposition process of a body that died in the 1st century.
My point being that one cannot even address the argument for hypoxia unless there is a potential for resurrection of 3-day-old bodies by natural means.
In other words, my inductive reasoning leads me to conclude the event so unlikely that the question you ask becomes meaningless - as a 3-day-old dead body would never rise and claim it had been to heaven.
(I am not a Christian because the Bible tells me so. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Bible.)
If you don't believe the inerrancy of the bible then you must accept the infallibility of man, as man's authority would be the only aveneue left to teach you about god. If man is fallible, then his understanding and teaching about god could also be fallible.
There is no need to assume Jesus a god or even that there is a god to follow his presumed teachings.
(I still wanted badly to inquire of Winston what does constitute proof?)
Proof is subjective - what I considered crushing evidence and thus proof that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife was disregarded by the jury as questionable evidence and insufficient proof.
That is the nature of evidence, proof, and truth. All are subjective, observer dependent. Reality is observer independent - things are as they are, regardless of what we human apes think, prove, feel, hope, or imagine.
(And I was just curious as to what is really viable proof.)
That would be proof you accept, wouldn't it? You accept a feeling in your gut as evidence of god. I do not accept that evidence.
God needs to be explained rationally, as part of hypothesis and theory of god. We could then show that it is either reasonable or unreasonable to continue to believe in god. But first things first. We have to define our key terms: what precisely do god and exist mean? No ambiguity, or no one knows exactly what is meant.
We are not trying to prove what is. We are trying to explain what may be.
(Speaking only for myself, viable proof is proof which is transmissible and objectively incontrovertible.)
Chasuk,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
You understand and describe it perfectly - "speaking only for myself". This is the proper nature of proof and the evidence for it. It is loosely speaking "opinion", but only insomuch that inductive reasoning ultmately boils down to an intuitive choice as to most probable.
For others, "opinion" is not such a loosely-used word to describe their "proof".
(I believe that there is something, inextricably incorporated into our reality which, by virtue of it's characteristics alone, has everything associated with mankind on a very precise timetable)
Druin Dude,
I appreciate your frank disclosure of opinion rather that trying to pass off faith as fact.
(But I still say that free will is the answer)
Mystery Planet,
The more that is learned about neuroscience, the less likely it appears that free will is possible, even. We seem to be hard-wired the other way.
Thanks to all for their comments.
Mystically, one could agrue that reality is nothing but an offshoot of human consciousness (aka thought). The argument of Free Will is, in every sense of the word, bogus. Why? Simple: humans are not and cannot argue Free Will. They can only argue the processes within their brains, termed Choice.
A believer can choose to believe for a myriad of 'reasons'. Note the reason(s) are of the same processes of thought as 'reason(s)' not to believe.
Granted, it is challenging for both a believing and non-believing humanoid to exercise more than a series of eleven consecutive thoughts, without adding some mystical or esoteric referral; a sense of something used to argue or establish the twelfth thought --likened to Shakespeare Twelfth Night, at the Elephant (in the otherwise jaded room). A comedy, yet a tragedy.
Now, we come to this: Should the characters decide to change how the script is to be read or interpreted, this creating improv, can we say Shakespeare is to blame? Certainly not.
What dictates the confirmation bias? In Shakespeare's case it was the pubs strong allure, the drink itself --which would be human thoughts and desires. Obviously the effect interferes, a drunkenness of self. A genuine examination of the construct cannot be done by such limited parameters. This then sets an opposition between the varying degrees within Choice.
With all the scientific 'advancements' or ideologies and all the theological 'mysticism', neither can --rationally or not-- provide an unbiased proof.
I am in agreement, Winston, especially on this: both a believer and non believer, no matter how hard they try, lack one solidifying thing -the full twelfth thought --experience. Denial on both parts has misled and misread the full scope of human worth and purpose. A Choice to be ignorant, a choice to be self, a choice to woo-woo, la-la, a choice to be dismissive --without ANY hard evidence or proof of why. Much has been supplanted to prove why using choice factors. Neither has validity of their proverbial testimonies. So, man keeps going to the pub and playing the role of poor pitiful pearl. Only fitting that Choice would be so intoxicating and entertaining. Because everything is either funny or violent to a drunk person -and nothing is ever clear.
Even still, a good read and well presented.
PS, I think I would call your paradoxes: Feste and Fabian... just my opine.. James.
I don't believe in free will. Maybe this disbelief was inevitable; I don't know. Everything should feel pointless without it, but that isn't my experience. My thoughts and my emotions continue to arise unbidden. Their unbidden nature makes me feel free.
(The argument of Free Will is, in every sense of the word, bogus)
Twenty One Days
The inductive support of that position is the more that is learned about neuroscience the more unlikely it appears that free choice is possible.
Thanks for your comment.
(Everything should feel pointless without it, but that isn't my experience. )
Chasuk,
Yes, our minds trick us into beleiving what is unreal. Case in point is that we are essentially blind for 4 hours a day because our sight is such a small area that it requires almost constant eye movement in order for our brains to build up a picture of what we "see". When our eyes move, we are blind. These little saccolades (eye movements) add up to a total of about 4 hours a day.
We trick ourselves into believeing free will, as well. It seems less and less likely.
Thanks for your comment.
 | Amazon Price: $5.28 List Price: $9.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $1.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $4.31 List Price: $14.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.23 List Price: $26.99 |
Pierre Savoie 12 months ago
I don't think there is enough education in the schools about the nature of reality. Not science, but how to determine reality. We should give kids a "user's manual" for the mind, with some commonsense statements like, "if you deprive the mind of oxygen, such as in life-threatening situations like a seizure, you might see "funny things" like your dead relatives very vividly. Don't trust your mind in these cases." Simple training like that would have prevented religions from ever arising in the first place. Of course, we didn't start out with a culture enlightened enough to know about "minds" and "oxygen" so religions slipped in unwillingly...
I doubt we can sway the religious, not because they have the truth, but because their clerical leadership has ensured that their belief has multiple "points of attachment" to the ego. Breaking just one attachment doesn't achieve enough, it has to be dramatic breaks on all fronts.