Is satan good and god evil?

philologos

I didn't say proved. One can certainly make a case for God, with rational indications. Since God by His nature is unverifiable, the best we can do is make a case for why it is more reasonable that God exists rather than not. Nobody can objectively prove or disprove God, one can demonstrate how one is more likely than the other however.

I also never said that the Bible is exclusively metaphorical. I'm merely suggesting that parts of the Bible are in allegorical form. If one has any knowledge of the text one can rather easily distinguish whether a text involves Biblical law, narrative, allegory, poetic / wisdom, or prophesy.

extrinzic

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't say proved. One can certainly make a case for God, with rational indications. Since God by His nature is unverifiable, the best we can do is make a case for why it is more reasonable that God exists rather than not. Nobody can objectively prove or disprove God, one can demonstrate how one is more likely than the other however.

The best you can do is demonstrate that god exists. Yet, needles to say, I fail to see how you can demonstrate that it is more likely that god exists.

I also never said that the Bible is exclusively metaphorical. I'm merely suggesting that parts of the Bible are in allegorical form. If one has any knowledge of the text one can rather easily distinguish whether a text involves Biblical law, narrative, allegory, poetic / wisdom, or prophesy.

Metaphor, allegory, whatever. My point is that you insist that we can be rationally convinced of the existence of a god which is tangible for you on the basis of a text that is anything but literal.

Furthermore, if we follow your logic to its conclusion, you insist that we can be reasonably coerced into accepting the true god through conclusions based on empirical evidence.To my mind this reduces the personal faith choices of individuals to intellectual thought experiments, which once discovered, would be ideally promoted by the majority of believers to enhance the recruitment power of the church. The view that you can be talked into a religious conviction seems to me to be the antithesis of faith based religion. It is also ironic that in such a situation it would seem that only "irrational" people would refute the rational arguments for the existence of god. Thankfully, as you have acknowledged, "Nobody can objectively prove or disprove God." I'll make up my own mind, thank you very much.

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

The best you can do is demonstrate that god exists. Yet, needles to say, I fail to see how you can demonstrate that it is more likely that god exists.

This suggests a lack of familiarity with any case that people have made for God's existence.

extrinzic wrote: »

Metaphor, allegory, whatever. My point is that you insist that we can be rationally convinced of the existence of a god which is tangible for you on the basis of a text that is anything but literal.

This isn't what I've said either!

Depending on the context of what is being read it is entirely reasonable to regard one text (Biblical commandments) as being literal, and another (Jesus' parables) as being allegorical. This is especially important in remembering that the Bible is a collection of different kinds of books.

I've mentioned the different genres you will find in the Bible:
Narrative, Allegorical, Poetic / Wisdom, Prophesy, Biblical law.

I haven't said anything but literal, rather I advocate reading something in context so that people understand the full meaning of the text so that it will be of greater benefit in their lives.

extrinzic wrote: »

Furthermore, if we follow your logic to its conclusion, you insist that we can be reasonably coerced into accepting the true god through conclusions based on empirical evidence.

Of course not. Believing in God is up to the individual. People can have as much evidence and still reject something. I'm not sure that you are interpreting the posts I have made in the way that I have made them.

extrinzic wrote: »

To my mind this reduces the personal faith choices of individuals to intellectual thought experiments, which once discovered, would be ideally promoted by the majority of believers to enhance the recruitment power of the church. The view that you can be talked into a religious conviction seems to me to be the antithesis of faith based religion. It is also ironic that in such a situation it would seem only that only "irrational" people would refute the rational arguments for the existence of god.

Believing in God doesn't mean you don't think and reason. It means that one has a personal relationship with God, but also that one believes that God's existence is reasonable.

I think you are confusing faith, with blind faith.

extrinzic wrote: »

Thankfully, as you have acknowledged, "Nobody can objectively prove or disprove God." I'll make up my own mind, thank you very much.

When have I suggested anything other than people making up their own mind? Again, you're being highly disingenuous with my posts.

This isn't in tune with philosophical discourse surely, to accuse someone of saying something they never said

Joe1919

"Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what definition you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true. In my view, neither the stronger nor the weaker claim has been convincingly established". He goes on "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kenny

extrinzic

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't said anything but literal, rather I advocate reading something in context so that people understand the full meaning of the text so that it will be of greater benefit in their lives.

I am aware that you do not interpret the bible literally, I just fail to see how you can rationaly argue for the existence of a god that is based on a concept that is by nature, undefined.

Of course not. Believing in God is up to the individual. People can have as much evidence and still reject something. I'm not sure that you are interpreting the posts I have made in the way that I have made them.

I am following the idea that god can be relationally argued for to its logical conclusion: "you must believe, here is the evidence!"

Believing in God doesn't mean you don't think and reason. It means that one has a personal relationship with God, but also that one believes that God's existence is reasonable.

The existence of god is unreasonable, that's why we have a book to tell us all about it. Nobody would know otherwise.

I think you are confusing faith, with blind faith.

I fail to see the difference in truth. Faith is belief without explination.

When have I suggested anything other than people making up their own mind? Again, you're being highly disingenuous with my posts.

You are taking this statement out of context. I am resistant to your atempt to convince me to believe in your god.

This isn't in tune with philosophical discourse surely, to accuse someone of saying something they never said

This conversation is philosophical, who would have thunk it.

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

I am aware that you do not interpret the bible literally, I just fail to see how you can rationaly argue for the existence of a god that is based on a concept that is by nature, undefined.

To me, nature itself demands an explanation, and God forms that explanation.

extrinzic wrote: »

I am following the idea that god can be relationally argued for to its logical conclusion: "you must believe, here is the evidence!"

I've been telling you that it involves both a rational part, and an empirical part. You've been ignoring this thus far. Even if the evidence seems good, people can reject the concept.

extrinzic wrote: »

The existence of god is unreasonable, that's why we have a book to tell us all about it. Nobody would know otherwise.

I don't think it is, particularly if one is going to be honest and search for a reason that accounts for all that exists.

extrinzic wrote: »

I fail to see the difference in truth. Faith is belief without explination.

If one has a bias that causes one to fail to see the difference, then one won't. Your definition of faith is dishonest. People have over centuries have provided explanations.

extrinzic wrote: »

You are taking this statement out of context. I am resistant to your atempt to convince me to believe in your god.

Who says this is what I am doing? Rather I am attempting to clarify some of the misconceptions that people have made.

extrinzic wrote: »

This conversation is philosophical, who would have thunk it.

It isn't in keeping with philosophy to strawman peoples positions though.

extrinzic

Jakkass wrote: »

To me, nature itself demands an explanation, and God forms that explanation.

A rather inflexible one.

I've been telling you that it involves both a rational part, and an empirical part. You've been ignoring this thus far. Even if the evidence seems good, people can reject the concept.

I have yet to see the empirical evidence. Cant really talk about it if it doesn't exist now, can we?

If one has a bias that causes one to fail to see the difference, then one won't. Your definition of faith is dishonest. People have over centuries have provided explanations.

Pot, Kettle, black. We can have faith in a scientific theory, but this can be overturend when a better one comes along, thereby explaining why we must reject the previous theory. God, on the other hand cannot be proved or disproved. Believing in god is faith without explanation.

Who says this is what I am doing? Rather I am attempting to clarify some of the misconceptions that people have made.

If you are not going to use the rational arguments for the existence of god to convince your fellow man, what are you going to do?

It isn't in keeping with philosophy to strawman peoples positions though.

You have accused me of claiming that you take the bible literally, and that I have no basis for believing in your attempt to convince me of the existence of god.

I respond that I never said that you take the bible literally, indeed my point was completely different. Similarly, if you wish to rationally and empiricly prove the existence of god, why?

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

I have yet to see the empirical evidence. Cant really talk about it if it doesn't exist now, can we?

Empirical - experiences.

I base the empirical aspect of my view of God from the experiences I have had of God in my every day life and of the guidance that He provides me.

Once one has this, the other considerations become secondary, but I think one needs to be convinced that God is reasonable before one can get to this point. Many apologists would also agree.

extrinzic wrote: »

Pot, Kettle, black. We can have faith in a scientific theory, but this can be overturend when a better one comes along, thereby explaining why we must reject the previous theory. God, on the other hand cannot be proved or disproved. Believing in god is faith without explanation.

This is being dishonest again. Is this a discussion or is this going to be a place just to spout your view repeatedly? The reality is that many people have provided explanations for why and how they believe. Indeed, this is the basis for Christian apologetics.

extrinzic wrote: »

If you are not going to use the rational arguments for the existence of god to convince your fellow man, what are you going to do?

Humans don't convince humans of God's existence, humans just bring people to a point where they might want to try and find out His truth for themselves.

extrinzic wrote: »

You have accused me of claiming that you take the bible literally, and that I have no basis for believing in your attempt to convince me of the existence of god.

What attempt? - All I've been aiming to do is to show that philosophy isn't an atheists playground and clear up some misconceptions. A huge proportion of philosophers believe in some form of higher power.

extrinzic wrote: »

I respond that I never said that you take the bible literally, indeed my point was completely different. Similarly, if you wish to rationally and empiricly prove the existence of god, why?

We've been through this. One can only indicate why God exists, or why God does not exist. That's the best we can do.

Joe1919 wrote:

"Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what definition you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true. In my view, neither the stronger nor the weaker claim has been convincingly established". He goes on "the true default position is neither theism nor atheism, but agnosticism ... a claim to knowledge needs to be substantiated; ignorance need only be confessed."

Atheism is just one position amongst many. It is due as much justification as anything else by my watch.

extrinzic

It seems that symbolic messages are not acceptable on boards after all. But that’s ok, I can live with the hypocrisy.

Jakkass wrote: »

Empirical - experiences.

I base the empirical aspect of my view of God from the experiences I have had of God in my every day life and of the guidance that He provides me.

...

Once one has this, the other considerations become secondary, but I think one needs to be convinced that God is reasonable before one can get to this point. Many apologists would also agree.

The thing about reason is that what is reasonable is often extremely unpleasant. But I guess god aint your friend, just your lord.

This is being dishonest again. Is this a discussion or is this going to be a place just to spout your view repeatedly? The reality is that many people have provided explanations for why and how they believe. Indeed, this is the basis for Christian apologetics.

You are the one who believes in god, and regardless of the fact you admit this view cannot be supported by evidence that would be accepted in any courtroom in the world (oh and I do get the irony), you repeatedly spout that I should accept the testimony of religious people as legitimate regardless.

Humans don't convince humans of God's existence, humans just bring people to a point where they might want to try and find out His truth for themselves.

...

What attempt? - All I've been aiming to do is to show that philosophy isn't an atheists playground and clear up some misconceptions. A huge proportion of philosophers believe in some form of higher power.

For the last time. If you aim to convince people through rational argument of the existence of god, you are attempting to convert people by intellectual argument. This removes the possibility of faith, and turns religion into a meal ticket for the afterlife.

We've been through this. One can only indicate why God exists, or why God does not exist. That's the best we can do.

Go on, ignore my point again. I’m really not that bothered, or surprised.

Atheism is just one position amongst many. It is due as much justification as anything else by my watch.

Is that a fact. That’s very objective of you.

Shield

extrinzic wrote: »

It seems that symbolic messages are not acceptable on boards after all. But that’s ok, I can live with the hypocrisy.

I'm sorry - what? A good discussion was being had, you post a 'Roll Eyes' in response to a post by Jakkass, it gets deleted (by me) because it adds nothing to the discussion, and you somehow deduce that "symbolic messages are not acceptable on boards"?

A bit of an over-reaction no?

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

It seems that symbolic messages are not acceptable on boards after all. But that’s ok, I can live with the hypocrisy.

Personally I'm thankful that psni stepped in. It is important to maintain the calibre of discussion, particularly on a philosophy board.

extrinzic wrote: »

...

If empirical is down to experience, then it is obvious if I have actually encountered God, and encountered His plan for my life that I am going to find that the most convincing. Reason opens the door, it doesn't make the decision whether or not you go inside or not. Many people resist the idea of Christ's Lordship even when it seems most reasonable to them.

extrinzic wrote: »

The thing about reason is that what is reasonable is often extremely unpleasant. But I guess god aint your friend, just your lord.

Christianity can be unpleasant at first, and it can be a shock to your system that there actually might be someone that you will be accountable to when this is all over. Although, I've come to love God through reading about how He has worked in peoples lives.

extrinzic wrote: »

You are the one who believes in god, and regardless of the fact you admit this view cannot be supported by evidence that would be accepted in any courtroom in the world (oh and I do get the irony), you repeatedly spout that I should accept the testimony of religious people as legitimate regardless.

Again, you're being disingenuous. I didn't say that it couldn't be supported by evidence, rather what I said was that it cannot be absolutely proven. It can be shown to be more likely to be true on a number of grounds, and a number of different philosophical arguments as well as other arguments have arisen from the Medieval Era from Jews, Christians and Muslims, and in the modern era from people such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga, Francis Schaeffer, and others. 2 of these people currently lecture in philosophy, the other guys writing is very much based on philosophy which he feels can bias people against Christianity. Which, according to the Scriptures seems a fair enough point:

Colossians 2:8 wrote:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Evidence is something that points to something being true. That's why I keep discussing indication. Evidence rarely in and of itself proves something, rather it brings us a step towards that conclusion. The more evidence that one finds for the Bible being true through archaeology, historical study amongst other fields, the more likely it is to be true.

extrinzic wrote: »

...

Remember when I said that reason opens the door, but it is up to you whether or not to walk in?

extrinzic wrote: »

For the last time. If you aim to convince people through rational argument of the existence of god, you are attempting to convert people by intellectual argument. This removes the possibility of faith, and turns religion into a meal ticket for the afterlife.

This isn't my intention on this forum despite many times of telling you otherwise. If you are going to find Christ, it will be through your own search. What I am doing is trying to clear up the nonsense that people have posted against Christianity on this forum, and people making the illusion that philosophy is an atheists playground. It is nothing of the case, and indeed most philosophers have believed in some form of higher power.

extrinzic wrote: »

Go on, ignore my point again. I’m really not that bothered, or surprised.

Your point is a strawman. You claim that I am trying to prove Christianity when that cannot be the case. One cannot prove something which is unverifiable. God is one of those things. This is why I place such importance on indication. Why is God more probable than not? Why is God more reasonable than no God? Indeed, skepticism doesn't stop at theism, despite how many atheists make it out to be. One has to ask, why can't there be a God, or why is it reasonable that no God exists. Indeed some philosophers make good arguments why it is reasonable that no God exists. Perhaps my favourite when studying the Philosophy of Religion was the Problem of Evil (Evidential), and the work of William Rowe.

extrinzic wrote: »

Is that a fact. That’s very objective of you.

Well, a good key to determining whether or not something is objective is reading the post carefully:

Atheism is just one position amongst many. It is due as much justification as anything else by my watch.

I am going to expect good reasoning as to why you are an atheist in any discussion.

Even if one can slander Christianity, this doesn't mean that I am more likely to become atheist. I could be Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion on the face of the planet. Slandering Christianity doesn't serve as reasoning as for why I should be an atheist any more as it is reasoning that I should be Jewish. It merely is an attempt to discredit Christianity, which I doubt will make any tangible difference in the long run.

Besides, everything in philosophy is based on opinion.

Joycey

Jakkass wrote: »

If empirical is down to experience, then it is obvious if I have actually encountered God, and encountered His plan for my life that I am going to find that the most convincing. Reason opens the door, it doesn't make the decision whether or not you go inside or not.

OK. What is "His" plan for your life? What is "His" plan for my life? Do you pray? If so, why? "He" already has a plan for your life.

I would argue that there is no such thing as "experience" without reason, nor reason without "experience". Experience is our being conscious in the world (or something like that). Reason is one of the means by which the world is apprehended, the other being affectivity. It seems meaningless to me to say "reason opens the door" to God. If you have a kind of "revelation" or something (in its religious meaning) then reason is already at work in your comprehension of what is revealed to you.

It seems entirely irrational to me to believe in the existence of something a priori simply because many people around you believe in the same thing, when there are such convincing anthropological and historical accounts for why those people believe the way they do, as well as explanations for what parts of the brain are complicit in religious experience and so on. This is all the more so when the aforementioned beliefs are to do with a great big unprovable, infinite, infallible physical impossibility, when previous to your revelation the world must surely have seen to operate just fine without the need for this being. Hence reason would surely have made it more unlikely that you would actually believe your "experience" if you were to have one of these revelations. I would say it was much more likely that the person had had some kind of hallucinatory episode. Occham's Razor and all that.

Have you actually had a divine revelation then? Or was talking about knowing "His plan" just a rhetorical flourish?

Many people resist the idea of Christ's Lordship even when it seems most reasonable to them.

I neither resist it or come crying into the spectre's arms. If it has "Lordship" over me then presumably I will burn in hell for all eternity. If not, then I will be proved justified in my belief that I create my own meaning and value in the world, same as you and everyone else. If there were any evidence whatsoever to convince me that I should rethink my position then I would then deal with that evidence appropriately. Given that there is none, why bother thinking about such things? There are people starving in the world that we could be talking about trying to feed instead of speculating about completely uninteresting metaphysical questions. Read some Buddhist literature if you want a more mature view of things.

Besides, everything in philosophy is based on opinion.

I think you may find the entire history of philosophy disagreeing with you there. If you are going to make a blanket assertion like that you might want to actually back it up with an argument rather than a kind of popular prejudice you come across in the media. This is a philosophy board after all.

philologos

Joycey wrote: »

OK. What is "His" plan for your life? What is "His" plan for my life? Do you pray? If so, why? "He" already has a plan for your life.

General: "To live for God, and to glorify God in all that I do".

Particular: He has given me a particular purpose on campus promoting Christianity, if you search on this forum, you will probably find out what this purpose is very quickly.

Do I pray? Yes.

Why do I pray? - there are numerous passages I could use, but this one seems to sum it up for me.

Philippians 4:4-7 wrote:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Joycey wrote: »

I would argue that there is no such thing as "experience" without reason, nor reason without "experience". Experience is our being conscious in the world (or something like that). Reason is one of the means by which the world is apprehended, the other being affectivity. It seems meaningless to me to say "reason opens the door" to God. If you have a kind of "revelation" or something (in its religious meaning) then reason is already at work in your comprehension of what is revealed to you.

Now, did you not read what I said earlier, concerning how reason, and experience go together in faith? I never said that one follows God without thinking.

If it seems meaningless to you, it is probably because you cannot relate to what I am talking about in the same way as others can, or as I have related to other Christian writers who have discussed this.

Joycey wrote: »

It seems entirely irrational to me to believe in the existence of something a priori simply because many people around you believe in the same thing, when there are such convincing anthropological and historical accounts for why those people believe the way they do, as well as explanations for what parts of the brain are complicit in religious experience and so on. This is all the more so when the aforementioned beliefs are to do with a great big unprovable, infinite, infallible physical impossibility, when previous to your revelation the world must surely have seen to operate just fine without the need for this being. Hence reason would surely have made it more unlikely that you would actually believe your "experience" if you were to have one of these revelations. I would say it was much more likely that the person had had some kind of hallucinatory episode. Occham's Razor and all that.

Do I believe in something a priori? No, I had to be convinced of God's existence.

By the by, who said I believed in Christianity just because other people believe in the same thing? By your logic, I should be an atheist or an agnostic as a majority of my friends are.

Joycey wrote: »

Have you actually had a divine revelation then? Or was talking about knowing "His plan" just a rhetorical flourish?

It really isn't through anyone saying anything, but how events unfold. There's nothing rhetorical about it, there is a reason why I use that expression .

Joycey wrote: »

I neither resist it or come crying into the spectre's arms. If it has "Lordship" over me then presumably I will burn in hell for all eternity. If not, then I will be proved justified in my belief that I create my own meaning and value in the world, same as you and everyone else. If there were any evidence whatsoever to convince me that I should rethink my position then I would then deal with that evidence appropriately. Given that there is none, why bother thinking about such things? There are people starving in the world that we could be talking about trying to feed instead of speculating about completely uninteresting metaphysical questions. Read some Buddhist literature if you want a more mature view of things.

What?

This is a highly derogatory comment considering how much Christians actually contribute to the world through aid, and charity.

It's also a highly patronising comment to say to learn Buddhism, and you might know things better. What's wrong with Christianity? What's wrong with Jesus?

If this discussion is uninteresting to you, feel free to press the X button on the top right hand corner of your screen and enjoy your day. You aren't posting here out of compulsion.

I'd also dispute that there is no evidence.

Joycey wrote: »

I think you may find the entire history of philosophy disagreeing with you there. If you are going to make a blanket assertion like that you might want to actually back it up with an argument rather than a kind of popular prejudice you come across in the media. This is a philosophy board after all.

This is my position. If you want to challenge it, challenge it like a true philosopher.

Joycey

Jakkass wrote: »

General: "To live for God, and to glorify God in all that I do".

Particular: He has given me a particular purpose on campus promoting Christianity, if you search on this forum, you will probably find out what this purpose is very quickly.

Right. I can easily see what you think "his" purpose for you is. What rational (because you do maintain that its rational, right?) grounds do you have for believing this is the plan you should follow? Revelation, bible reading, or something else?

Do I pray? Yes.

Why do I pray? - there are numerous passages I could use, but this one seems to sum it up for me.

Philippians 4:4-7 wrote:

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

If "He" has a divine plan, presumably set in motion since the 'beginning of time' or whatever, then surely its not going to change just because you want a new car or your aunt got sick. Whats the point in requesting stuff in prayer? And I dont really see why something that created me despite my having no choice about it deserves gratitude for doing it? I mean, doesnt that seem a bit disingenuous to all the people who kill themselves every day?

Do I believe in something a priori? No, I had to be convinced of God's existence.

What convinced you?

By the by, who said I believed in Christianity just because other people believe in the same thing? By your logic, I should be an atheist or an agnostic as a majority of my friends are.

The point is if you were living in the highlands of Papua New Guinea as a hunter gatherer then you wouldnt have had access to "His plan" or all the rewards for following it. Now given there is sound scientific evidence of various kinds for the Christianity having been such a successful belief system at propagating itself, usually through war and oppression BTW, it doesnt really seem to me to make any difference if the bible is an authentic manuscript from 2000 years ago. Like any other work of philosophy from back then, it relied on explanations for things which we can now explain empirically to be justified metaphysically. Just as the dominant form of moral teaching of that small sect at the time was justified by recourse to a supreme, infallible being which has declared it to be thus. It is only as a result of various historical events that you even had it as an available option to read the bible and be one of the ones who is "saved", in God's infinite wisdom.

Apart from any of this, you missed the point of the paragraph you quoted.

This is all the more so when the aforementioned beliefs are to do with a great big unprovable, infinite, infallible physical impossibility, when previous to your revelation the world must surely have seen to operate just fine without the need for this being. Hence reason would surely have made it more unlikely that you would actually believe your "experience" if you were to have one of these revelations. I would say it was much more likely that the person had had some kind of hallucinatory episode. Occham's Razor and all that.

Could you show me how a belief in God can be seen as "reasonable", when the above argument is taken into account?

It really isn't through anyone saying anything, but how events unfold. There's nothing rhetorical about it, there is a reason why I use that expression.

Which is?

This is a highly derogatory comment considering how much Christians actually contribute to the world through aid, and charity.

Really CBA getting into an argument about whether Christian's are moral people or not. Id rather just judge the people or their actions independantly of whatever belief system they happen to justify their action with. Generosity is usually good IMO, regardless of the religion of the person doing it.

It's also a highly patronising comment to say to learn Buddhism, and you might know things better. What's wrong with Christianity? What's wrong with Jesus?

What I can do is attack the belief system itself though. I would say that it creates/reinforces a false notion of there being an individuated, atomised self which "I" alone am responsible for. It is inherently alienating, saying "agree with me or burn in hell". I know it has infiltrated all value I attribute to the world so profoundly as to disallow me from having any real idea of what it would be like to not come at things from the perspective of simple binaries and dichotomies, however I look to Eastern religions and the limited information I have about hunter gatherer tribes and stuff and I see a much more holistic view of nature, us and the world. Much more in line with continental philosopher's like Heidegger and Levinas who will completely change the way you see everything if you read them.

Then there are Nietzsche's critiques. The most profound one I find to be where he talks about
human beings having taken the natural world,
created gods in them,
abstracted the value we once saw fit to invest in us and the world and put it into the gods,
abstracted the gods from nature,
caused the death of god by means of science and so on,
lost all the value we once had in the world and are now left with nihilism.

Its something like the Blake quote I gave above as well.

If this discussion is uninteresting to you, feel free to press the X button on the top right hand corner of your screen and enjoy your day. You aren't posting here out of compulsion.

I would do that but your self righteous attitude in asserting that (a) people here think that philosophy is an "athiest's playground" and (b) it shouldnt be that way for the most part , is what got me annoyed enough to post to begin with.

Granted the bit about Buddhism was condescending but as you can see I have valid reasons for asserting it.

I'd also dispute that there is no evidence.

Other than the bible, which I have already given you my reasons for not believing to be factually accurate, what evidence do you have?

This is my position. If you want to challenge it, challenge it like a true philosopher.

Lets ignore the fact that you should be the one to have to back up your statement if you make such a claim.

OK. 2+2=4. Is that my opinion?

Allen Ginsberg definition of poetry:
"Poetry is words that are empowered to make your hair stand on end, that you realize instantly as being some form of subjective truth that has an objective reality to it, because somebody has realized it. Then you call it poetry later."

Which I would subscribe to

philologos

Joycey wrote: »

Right. I can easily see what you think "his" purpose for you is. What rational (because you do maintain that its rational, right?) grounds do you have for believing this is the plan you should follow? Revelation, bible reading, or something else?

Ah you're doing it again. I said there was two sides to my faith. You asked me about the empirical side, which would involve a relationship rather than the reasons why I hold my faith. I at least am human enough to recognise that there is an emotional part to every decision we make. Not everything has to be rational. This is why I used the door analogy, because reason can only bring you so far. It can bring you to the conclusion that Christianity is reasonable, but there is no guarantee that it will cause you to accept it as your faith.

I guess the main source that God has a plan for my life would be in the Biblical text. God has had a unique plan for everyone's life from the beginning to now. Whether or not one chooses to accept it is up to them.

Joycey wrote: »

If "He" has a divine plan, presumably set in motion since the 'beginning of time' or whatever, then surely its not going to change just because you want a new car or your aunt got sick. Whats the point in requesting stuff in prayer? And I dont really see why something that created me despite my having no choice about it deserves gratitude for doing it? I mean, doesnt that seem a bit disingenuous to all the people who kill themselves every day?

I don't think he'll change it but rather to help you to find a deeper understanding of it. If your prayer is in accordance to God's will it will be granted. At least this is my view of it. I'm open to be challenged by another Christian or anyone else on this forum.

If you can't see why you should thank your Creator for the gift of life, you need to take a better look at what we actually have and start to be thankful for it.

As for the people committing suicide, they have clear problems with their self-esteem and other issues. I like most Irish people have encountered people who have gone on to do this. It might not be so obvious, but there is an underlying conflict that brings that about, in a lot of cases influenced by other outside sources. However, it's a bit off topic to discuss suicide isn't it?

Joycey wrote: »

What convinced you?

I have 9 things so far:

1) Historical figures in the Bible
2) Biblical archaeology
3) Arguments from Creation
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes
6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles
9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature

Joycey wrote: »

The point is if you were living in the highlands of Papua New Guinea as a hunter gatherer then you wouldnt have had access to "His plan" or all the rewards for following it. Now given there is sound scientific evidence of various kinds for the Christianity having been such a successful belief system at propagating itself, usually through war and oppression BTW, it doesnt really seem to me to make any difference if the bible is an authentic manuscript from 2000 years ago. Like any other work of philosophy from back then, it relied on explanations for things which we can now explain empirically to be justified metaphysically. Just as the dominant form of moral teaching of that small sect at the time was justified by recourse to a supreme, infallible being which has declared it to be thus. It is only as a result of various historical events that you even had it as an available option to read the bible and be one of the ones who is "saved", in God's infinite wisdom.

You do realise that Papua New Guinea is a majority Christian nation? (96% are members of Christian churches).

If you mean that it would be more difficult to become a Christian in Iran or in the Middle East, then yes that is true, but due to missionary efforts the most growth in the Christian faith today is happening in countries which aren't traditionally associated with Christianity. The most successful of these is South Korea in which Christianity is now the largest belief system, after this there has been huge success in China.

Again, you are attempting to argue that philosophy cannot have Christian considerations, this is false even until the present day with a huge proportion of philosophers being Christian.

Joycey wrote: »

Apart from any of this, you missed the point of the paragraph you quoted.

It's the typical if you were born in region X you would hold to religion of region X malarky. We could get into that all we wanted, but there is clear evidence that thousands of people from countries which aren't traditionally Christian are accepting Christianity.

Joycey wrote: »

Could you show me how a belief in God can be seen as "reasonable", when the above argument is taken into account?

There are numerous books one could consult. I'd recommend C.S Lewis' - Mere Christianity, or any of Francis Schaeffers works. There are hundreds of books which make rational defences of Christian faith.

Joycey wrote: »

Which is?

I explained it quite clearly. How events pan out seems to lead me in a certain direction.

Joycey wrote: »

Really CBA getting into an argument about whether Christian's are moral people or not. Id rather just judge the people or their actions independantly of whatever belief system they happen to justify their action with. Generosity is usually good IMO, regardless of the religion of the person doing it.

You're saying that people could be focusing on other things if they weren't thinking about God, but God is actually the channel through which I'm willing to bet that most aid work is done.

Joycey wrote: »

What I can do is attack the belief system itself though. I would say that it creates/reinforces a false notion of there being an individuated, atomised self which "I" alone am responsible for. It is inherently alienating, saying "agree with me or burn in hell". I know it has infiltrated all value I attribute to the world so profoundly as to disallow me from having any real idea of what it would be like to not come at things from the perspective of simple binaries and dichotomies, however I look to Eastern religions and the limited information I have about hunter gatherer tribes and stuff and I see a much more holistic view of nature, us and the world. Much more in line with continental philosopher's like Heidegger and Levinas who will completely change the way you see everything if you read them.

What are you talking about, this individuated I? Christianity encourages group based worship and action as well.

You talk about alienation, it's very easy to discuss this, but there is actually the possibility that there might actually be a heaven or a hell. People say that God is so cruel for bringing people to hell, when in reality people bring themselves there. That's a whole different kettle of fish though.

Joycey wrote: »

Then there are Nietzsche's critiques. The most profound one I find to be where he talks about
human beings having taken the natural world,
created gods in them,
abstracted the value we once saw fit to invest in us and the world and put it into the gods,
abstracted the gods from nature,
caused the death of god by means of science and so on,
lost all the value we once had in the world and are now left with nihilism.

Science hasn't killed God. In fact Christianity is more widespread in the world than it has ever been.

Joycey wrote: »

I would do that but your self righteous attitude in asserting that (a) people here think that philosophy is an "athiest's playground" and (b) it shouldnt be that way for the most part , is what got me annoyed enough to post to begin with.

It's hardly self-righteous to speak the truth. I come into this forum, and I see everyone blathering away about how God is irrational, unintelligible etc, typical of the Atheists & Agnostics forum. One would rightly get the impression that philosophy is an atheists playground.

Joycey wrote: »

Granted the bit about Buddhism was condescending but as you can see I have valid reasons for asserting it.

That's highly debatable, but I'll let it pass :pac:

Joycey wrote: »

Other than the bible, which I have already given you my reasons for not believing to be factually accurate, what evidence do you have?

See above.

Joycey wrote: »

Lets ignore the fact that you should be the one to have to back up your statement if you make such a claim.

Feel free to challenge it. Philosophy is generally based on peoples conceptions about differing areas in life. This is what I have observed from studying philosophy thus far.

Joycey wrote: »

OK. 2+2=4. Is that my opinion?

Are you seriously suggesting that philosophy is as certain as 2+2=4?

Joycey

I am taking your advice and hitting the X button on the top of my browser. Have a good day to you too

extrinzic

psni wrote: »

I'm sorry - what? A good discussion was being had, you post a 'Roll Eyes' in response to a post by Jakkass, it gets deleted (by me) because it adds nothing to the discussion, and you somehow deduce that "symbolic messages are not acceptable on boards"?

A bit of an over-reaction no?

It was a rather dry attempt at humour. I was criticising your decision to delete my smiley because Jakkass can use a symbolic text to support his argument, whilst I cannot. An overreaction, yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I'm thankful that psni stepped in. It is important to maintain the calibre of discussion, particularly on a philosophy board.

Good for you Jakkass.

If empirical is down to experience, then it is obvious if I have actually encountered God, and encountered His plan for my life that I am going to find that the most convincing. Reason opens the door, it doesn't make the decision whether or not you go inside or not. Many people resist the idea of Christ's Lordship even when it seems most reasonable to them.

Reason is reason about what we care about. We only reason after we value something more than something else. Reason is not some separate part of our consciousness; it is not a hotline to god. Our emotions play a fundamental role in our reason. This is one of the reasons why it is reasonable for you to search for god, and I to search for independence. There is no door for me to step through, I am in the place I am meant to be. I have no afterlife to live up to.

Christianity can be unpleasant at first, and it can be a shock to your system that there actually might be someone that you will be accountable to when this is all over. Although, I've come to love God through reading about how He has worked in peoples lives.

Who? Where is this big man in the sky?

Again, you're being disingenuous. I didn't say that it couldn't be supported by evidence, rather what I said was that it cannot be absolutely proven. It can be shown to be more likely to be true on a number of grounds, and a number of different philosophical arguments as well as other arguments have arisen from the Medieval Era from Jews, Christians and Muslims, and in the modern era from people such as William Lane Craig, Alvin Platinga, Francis Schaeffer, and others. 2 of these people currently lecture in philosophy, the other guys writing is very much based on philosophy which he feels can bias people against Christianity. Which, according to the Scriptures seems a fair enough point:

I find it remarkable how you expect others to know the truth, and when somebody claims something that is outside the scope of what is reasonable true for you, you label them dishonest. It is a remarkable streak of arrogance in you. The fact remains; I cannot accept a personal account of experience that is beyond the realm of possibility in my personal experience.

Evidence is something that points to something being true. That's why I keep discussing indication. Evidence rarely in and of itself proves something, rather it brings us a step towards that conclusion. The more evidence that one finds for the Bible being true through archaeology, historical study amongst other fields, the more likely it is to be true.

The more likely that people copied a lot of manuscripts.

Remember when I said that reason opens the door, but it is up to you whether or not to walk in?

“Do you want to be in our gang, our gang our gang...”

This isn't my intention on this forum despite many times of telling you otherwise. If you are going to find Christ, it will be through your own search. What I am doing is trying to clear up the nonsense that people have posted against Christianity on this forum, and people making the illusion that philosophy is an atheists playground. It is nothing of the case, and indeed most philosophers have believed in some form of higher power.

We are aware of the Christian apologists etc. It just so happens that most of us are not looking for those kinds of answers.

Your point is a strawman. You claim that I am trying to prove Christianity when that cannot be the case. One cannot prove something which is unverifiable. God is one of those things. This is why I place such importance on indication. Why is God more probable than not? Why is God more reasonable than no God? Indeed, skepticism doesn't stop at theism, despite how many atheists make it out to be. One has to ask, why can't there be a God, or why is it reasonable that no God exists. Indeed some philosophers make good arguments why it is reasonable that no God exists. Perhaps my favourite when studying the Philosophy of Religion was the Problem of Evil (Evidential), and the work of William Rowe.

Granted, I weakened my point by carelessly asking you to admit why you wish to prove gods existence. What I should have asked is why you wish to argue for his existence.
The problem of evil is like a bad hangover from a Christmas party.

Well, a good key to determining whether or not something is objective is reading the post carefully:

I am going to expect good reasoning as to why you are an atheist in any discussion.

Very good. I have never been convinced by the religious testimony of others. Never meet the big guy upstairs, and have found most Christians to be concerned with the community at mass than any deity, and rightly so. If I had had to endure the quivering and jumping I have seen on the tv, I would have run away.

Even if one can slander Christianity, this doesn't mean that I am more likely to become atheist. I could be Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion on the face of the planet. Slandering Christianity doesn't serve as reasoning as for why I should be an atheist any more as it is reasoning that I should be Jewish. It merely is an attempt to discredit Christianity, which I doubt will make any tangible difference in the long run.

The Catholic church have done a fine job of this themselves. From the grotesquely hypocritical displays of wealth in Rome, to the protection of paedophiles on our own shores.

Besides, everything in philosophy is based on opinion.

General sweeping statement, sloppy.

ChocolateSauce

The deeper study of Christianity is something I haven't done, but my impression is yes. When I was 4 years old and my primary school teacher was reading genesis to us, I couldn't help but notice that the snake tempting eve was a metaphor for a sceptic saying that god wasn't real.

Although this is most of what I know about Satan, he'd want to be very nasty indeed to be worse than god, for obvious reasons.

philologos

extrinzic wrote: »

Reason is reason about what we care about. We only reason after we value something more than something else. Reason is not some separate part of our consciousness; it is not a hotline to god. Our emotions play a fundamental role in our reason. This is one of the reasons why it is reasonable for you to search for god, and I to search for independence. There is no door for me to step through, I am in the place I am meant to be. I have no afterlife to live up to.

I don't think one necessarily has to value something in order to assess whether or not it is reasonable. In a Jewish context I have the source text of the Tanakh, I read it, and I think about it as I go through the text. I have the source, but the reason follows on, as I'm genuinely thinking whether or not this genuinely makes sense. Likewise in an Islamic context, I have the source text of the Qur'an and so on.

Your idea is that we put a value on God already before we even come to find it reasonable. Tell me this, how could we have any genuine or complete idea of the Judaic God, or any other deity unless we actually give the idea time, and consider the source text.

This is the reason why I think any criticism of Christianity which doesn't demonstrate a strong knowledge of the Biblical text is flawed. If one is ignorant of what Christianity is claiming, it will be just one big strawman.

Also, how can you be so sure there is no door unless one knocks? I.E That one does the necessary searching. I'd find that a bit hasty to say the least. If one were doing this in a methodical manner, one would rigorously assess the possibility of there being a God, and uphold or dismiss it based on their findings.

It also isn't very philosophical to dismiss the afterlife without providing any reasoning of it. In reality, we have no perception of where we were before this life, if anywhere, and where we will be going afterwards. This leaves the question open.

extrinzic wrote: »

Who? Where is this big man in the sky?

Ever heard of non-corporeal and omnipresent?

extrinzic wrote: »

I find it remarkable how you expect others to know the truth, and when somebody claims something that is outside the scope of what is reasonable true for you, you label them dishonest. It is a remarkable streak of arrogance in you. The fact remains; I cannot accept a personal account of experience that is beyond the realm of possibility in my personal experience.

It's not that I expect others to know the truth. It's that these guys present rigorous arguments for Christianity. I don't so much expect people to know the truth, but I do expect for any philosopher in particular to be able to think and reason as to the possibility rather than dismissing it outright.

You say you cannot accept a personal account, that's fine. That's why I have cited other authors that you can consult that make arguments for their positions.

extrinzic wrote: »

The more likely that people copied a lot of manuscripts.

This goes against the factual situation. What is true is we have over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and if we suspect that they have been changed, Biblical scholars can check right through all 20,000 and see what patterns there are throughout the texts. In doing this only 0.4 - 0.5% of the New Testament canon has been regarded as doubtful. It's also more authentic than the texts of Aristotle or Plato.

extrinzic wrote: »

We are aware of the Christian apologists etc. It just so happens that most of us are not looking for those kinds of answers.

To claim that there is no evidence without even consulting these isn't a valid assessment by my book. There is one thing to say that there is no evidence, and there is another in putting on a blindfold and saying I don't want to know.

extrinzic wrote: »

Granted, I weakened my point by carelessly asking you to admit why you wish to prove gods existence. What I should have asked is why you wish to argue for his existence.
The problem of evil is like a bad hangover from a Christmas party.

What's so wrong with the Problem of Evil, just curious? I do believe that the theodicies are adequate in dealing with the issue.

As for arguing for his existence, that isn't the point why I started to post on this thread. The reason I did was to clear up some misconceptions that people had posted concerning the authenticity of the Bible, and other such things.

extrinzic wrote: »

Very good. I have never been convinced by the religious testimony of others. Never meet the big guy upstairs, and have found most Christians to be concerned with the community at mass than any deity, and rightly so. If I had had to endure the quivering and jumping I have seen on the tv, I would have run away.

Exactly, you shouldn't trust what other people say, you should find out for yourself. Although I reckon you haven't "met the big guy upstairs" precisely because you have no interest in "meeting the big guy upstairs". Would I be correct or is this a rash assumption?

As for the quivering and jumping you will see on TV channels, this isn't typical of most of Christianity. Infact I myself would show as much disdain for this as anyone else.

extrinzic wrote: »

The Catholic church have done a fine job of this themselves. From the grotesquely hypocritical displays of wealth in Rome, to the protection of paedophiles on our own shores.

Who said I was defending Roman Catholicism? (Personally, I am a Christian, but not a Roman Catholic, unfortunately people conflate the two here). The point is that these things that happened, were by their nature not Christian acts. Do you honestly think, based on what you know of Jesus of Nazareth that He would have condoned such acts?

I think this is adequate to suggest that this is only sidetracking from the argument. We are no longer dealing with the merits, or the deficiencies in God's existence, but we are dealing with human acts, and human failings.

Let's try to keep somewhat on topic.

extrinzic wrote: »

General sweeping statement, sloppy.

Based on my assessment of philosophy, this seems accurate to me. As I've said to Joycey, if you have an issue with it, why don't you deal with it in a philosophical manner?

The one exception I can think of is philosophical logic, but apart from that I don't see how this falls short.

pagancornflake

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the reason why I think any criticism of Christianity which doesn't demonstrate a strong knowledge of the Biblical text is flawed. If one is ignorant of what Christianity is claiming, it will be just one big strawman.

Nope, all that is required is the knowledge that something transcendental is being inferred on the basis of scriptural teachings. The intricacies of Christianity need not be adressed. Only the epistemic concerns are of any consequence.

Jakkass wrote: »

Based on my assessment of philosophy, this seems accurate to me. As I've said to Joycey, if you have an issue with it, why don't you deal with it in a philosophical manner?

The one exception I can think of is philosophical logic, but apart from that I don't see how this falls short.

Philosophy is the logical clarification of ideas and concepts. Hence, what is of concern in a philosophical discussion is the defense of a statements predicates in light of the laws of logic. Opinion can fuel the discussion, but it is by no means the soul of what philosophy is "about".

philologos

pagancornflake wrote: »

Nope, all that is required is the knowledge that something transcendental is being inferred on the basis of scriptural teachings. The intricacies of Christianity need not be adressed. Only the epistemic concerns are of any consequence.

How can one have any clue about what God is about if one doesn't consult the texts that tell us about Him?

I've found at the very least, effective arguments against Christianity are based on the Biblical text. If they aren't they fall short. Of course they do, for how can you have any clue about what you are criticising otherwise?

If we are discussing the Judeo-Christian God, how on earth are we going to discuss if we know nothing about Judaism or Christianity?

An argument made from ignorance, most surely isn't an argument at all?

pagancornflake

Jakkass wrote: »

How can one have any clue about what God is about if one doesn't consult the texts that tell us about Him?

Because, logically, all we are concerned with are the epistemic predicates which deal with the ontological status of a god, not what each and every text has to say about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've found at the very least, effective arguments against Christianity are based on the Biblical text. If they aren't they fall short. Of course they do, for how can you have any clue about what you are criticising otherwise?

"What you have found" is irrelevant until it has been demonstrated here. Arguments from scripture are not the most useful until you have answered the many epistemic concerns dealing with the god concept, since the scripture cannot be assumed to be the word of god until the supposed author has been defended in the realms of logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are discussing the Judeo-Christian God, how on earth are we going to discuss if we know nothing about Judaism or Christianity?

An argument made from ignorance, most surely isn't an argument at all?

I was talking about general arguments against the idea of god, rather than a direct criticism of Christianity, sorry. Its just that arguments against the idea of god subsume arguments against the Christian god, so your statement:

Jakkass wrote:

I think any criticism of Christianity which doesn't demonstrate a strong knowledge of the Biblical text is flawed. If one is ignorant of what Christianity is claiming, it will be just one big strawman.

is wrong. It is only an argument from ignorance if the requisite knowledge for the discussion is absent. I argue that it is not.

philologos

pagancornflake wrote: »

Because, logically, all we are concerned with are the epistemic predicates which deal with the ontological status of a god, not what each and every text has to say about it.

Logic doesn't tell us anything about God. Logic is what we use to assess claims once we know them. Personally I would consider God's existence to make logical sense given the current way of the world. However, it's impossible to reason about God unless one knows what God is.

One cannot confirm whether something is likely to exist or not without knowing what one is attempting to find. It would be absurd and ridiculous to say otherwise.

pagancornflake wrote: »

"What you have found" is irrelevant until it has been demonstrated here. Arguments from scripture are not the most useful until you have answered the many epistemic concerns dealing with the god concept, since the scripture cannot be assumed to be the word of god until the supposed author has been defended in the realms of logic.

Actually, it isn't. It's laughable to think that someone can make a reasonable criticism of something when they don't know what it is. If you want to criticise Christianity, one needs to be familiar with it. What I am finding now, and yes, this is relevant, is that most critics of Christianity are Biblically illiterate.

pagancornflake wrote: »

I was talking about general arguments against the idea of god, rather than a direct criticism of Christianity, sorry. Its just that arguments against the idea of god subsume arguments against the Christian god, so your statement is wrong. It is only an argument from ignorance if the requisite knowledge for the discussion is absent. I argue that it is not.

I personally argue that it is, precisely because there is no point in arguing about God unless we know what we are arguing about.

pagancornflake

Jakkass wrote: »

Logic doesn't tell us anything about God. Logic is what we use to assess claims once we know them. Personally I would consider God's existence to make logical sense given the current way of the world. However, it's impossible to reason about God unless one knows what God is.

In the realm of epistemology (which is what we are discussing when discussing claims regarding ontological status) it certainly does. The alternative makes not sense because there would be no room for logical discourse at any stage if we were to assume the epistemic predicates necessary to take intricate descriptions of each god seriously. Logic is what is ought to be used to make and assess claims.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I would consider God's existence to make logical sense given the current way of the world.

Why?

Jakkass wrote: »

However, it's impossible to reason about God unless one knows what God is.

God is a transcendental concept inferred from apperceptive data. Knowledge of Christian scripture has nothing to do with this.

Jakkass wrote: »

One cannot confirm whether something is likely to exist or not without knowing what one is attempting to find. It would be absurd and ridiculous to say otherwise.

Nothing to do with likelihood, or trying to find anything other than predicates underlying transcendental inference, just logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, it isn't. It's laughable to think that someone can make a reasonable criticism of something when they don't know what it is. If you want to criticise Christianity, one needs to be familiar with it. What I am finding now, and yes, this is relevant, is that most critics of Christianity are Biblically illiterate.

Yes, it is. Knowledge of Christian scripture is irrelevant for making a criticism of general transcendental ideas. What criteria determine whether or not a criticism of god is a good one?

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally argue that it is, precisely because there is no point in arguing about God unless we know what we are arguing about.

Exactly. And Christian scripture is not necessary for this. Hence, it is not an argument from ignorance.

philologos

pagancornflake wrote: »

In the realm of epistemology (which is what we are discussing when discussing claims regarding ontological status) it certainly does. The alternative makes not sense because there would be no room for logical discourse at any stage if we were to assume the epistemic predicates necessary to take intricate descriptions of each god seriously. Logic is what is ought to be used to make and assess claims.

If we are to assume? What are we assuming? We are looking to discredit a particular idea of God.

One first has a hypothesis, and then one investigates said hypothesis to assert if it is true or false. I may as well remind you that the OP makes particular references to the Judeo-Christian God and the Bible.

In order to genuinely pose a genuine argument against Christianity, I have yet to see how the argument could be effective if someone doesn't know what the Bible says about God?

pagancornflake wrote: »

Why?

God explains our fallible, fallen human nature. God explains how order came from chaos. God explains the existence of absolute moral norms. God provides us with a teleological purpose. God provides a reasonable explanation from beginning to end as to why we are here, where we came from, where we are going, what we should do, what we should not do, what is our purpose, what is our meaning to life.

To me this is logical. Any secular view of any of these things to be seems lacking in comparison, and quite frankly absurd.

pagancornflake wrote: »

God is a transcendental concept inferred from apperceptive data. Knowledge of Christian scripture has nothing to do with this.

It has to do with the OP. I'm not entirely sure that we do know about God a priori though, you'd have to present a case as to why this is so?

pagancornflake wrote: »

Nothing to do with likelihood, or trying to find anything other than predicates underlying transcendental inference, just logic.

It has everything to do with likelihood. We are determining whether or not hypothesis X or Y is likely to be true.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Yes, it is. Knowledge of Christian scripture is irrelevant for making a criticism of general transcendental ideas. What criteria determine whether or not a criticism of god is a good one?

It is necessary for arguing against Christianity. Criteria for a criticism of God, always must involve a rigid knowledge of what one is criticising. Otherwise it's going to be riddled with strawmen.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Exactly. And Christian scripture is not necessary for this. Hence, it is not an argument from ignorance.

If you are arguing against Christianity, it is an argument from ignorance.

Joycey

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are arguing against Christianity, it is an argument from ignorance.

Hes not. He, and anyone else doing philosophy IMO, is arguing against (about) the conditions for the possibility of knowing anything like the god of Christian texts. Not about various claims made within those texts themselves, which is a theological debate, and which you are attempting to reduce the argument to. A 'leap of faith' is required in order to enter into the latter debate. Given that those on this thread who oppose you seem to reject the validity or desirableness of this leap of faith, rather than focusing on what follows from your assumption you should be attempting to debate the conditions surrounding such a leap or arguements against its necessity for religious belief.

Anything else, apart from the metaphysical or ontological possibilities which may result from such an assumption once made explicit, is theology and not philsophy.

All that is to say BTW that knowledge of scripture is irrelevant to a discussion revolving around the epistemology of God, and if you cant convince anyone of the validity or possibility of knowledge of god, then knowledge of scripture becomes all the more irrelevant.

philologos

The OP is making clear reference to God, Satan, and the Bible. I thought it might be good to stay on topic.

Although I think your post is fallacious on one front. How can one know what is like the Judeo-Christian God if they do not know what the Judeo-Christian God is meant to be in the first place? We hit the exact same problem!

Joycey wrote:

Anything else, apart from the metaphysical or ontological possibilities which may result from such an assumption once made explicit, is theology and not philsophy.

Hang on though, doesn't the philosophy of religion deal with divine attributes?

Joycey

Jakkass wrote:

I thought it might be good to stay on topic.

OP wrote:

I'd wish for all to have an open mind on this question, and to put aside christian imagery of satan for a minute and ask ourselves this question, is satan good and god evil?

Agreed (although I cant really see how)

Hang on though, doesn't the philosophy of religion deal with divine attributes?

I would have said it was thinking about religion as opposed to thinking within religion. Thought experiments like Descartes meditiation involving a scepticism which arises from the possible existence of a malicious creator and so on have implications for the rest of thought. I would have said examples of this kind are limited, and do not really need any kind of knowledge of scripture beyond what you inevitably pick up as a member of the society we live in.

Another way in which knowledge of religious texts would be useful is in the application of basic ways of thinking about the world other than our own (which derives from Judeo-Islamic-Christian religious texts by and large) to contemporary scientific ideas or philosophical ones. I have already mentioned how closely related parts of Buddhism and people like Heidegger's thought are, and some implications of quantum physics, as far as I understand them, are also implied by the metaphysical speculations contained in Buddhist texts. As you can probably see though, I am far more interested in them as containers of ideas, so to speak, that I may then decide to structure my life around if they serve to explain the world better, than as texts which I should dogmatically obey because I believe they are the word of an infallible being. This seems to me to be a philosophical approach as opposed to a theological one.

philologos

Then the OP is inconsistent, referring to the Bible soon afterwards and discussing the Christian God.

pagancornflake

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are to assume? What are we assuming? We are looking to discredit a particular idea of God.

No, we are trying to discredit the idea of god entirely. We are assuming that inferring intangible ontological (transcendental) things on the basis of apperceptive data is conducive to reliable forms of justification, which they cannot be shown to be.

Jakkass wrote: »

One first has a hypothesis, and then one investigates said hypothesis to assert if it is true or false. I may as well remind you that the OP makes particular references to the Judeo-Christian God and the Bible.

And you make particular reference to philosophy and its role. You said that philosophy is all about opinion. That is wrong. Anyways, the hypothesis-testing-theory progression is a method which can only be used based on empirical data, to arrive at a tangible conclusion (either in its definition or by virtue of its concomitant clauses). The idea of god is not tangible, it cannot be falsified, hence it is not empirical and is not a hypothesis.

Jakkass wrote: »

In order to genuinely pose a genuine argument against Christianity, I have yet to see how the argument could be effective if someone doesn't know what the Bible says about God?

In order to pose a genuine argument against Christianity, all I need to do is deal with the logical predicates involved, not your scripture. This point has not been confronted, so it carries until such time as you tackle it.

Jakkass wrote: »

God explains our fallible, fallen human nature.

So does psychological reciprocal determinism (which has the added benefit of being falsifiable and not reliant on such unbelievably subjective concepts as "flaw")

Jakkass wrote: »

God explains how order came from chaos.

What order and from what chaos.

Jakkass wrote: »

God explains the existence of absolute moral norms.

There are none that can be shown to have been ubiquitous across all populations at any stage in history. All that can be observed is near ubiquitous moral principles today. There is nothing to suggest that these are innate, since ubiquity proves only ubiquity of social influence. Again, reciprocal determinism does more to explain moral behaviors in a reliable, and falsifiable way.

Jakkass wrote: »

God provides us with a teleological purpose.

You cannot infer the metaphysical ontological state of design from such an apperceptive influence. It makes no logical sense following Humes criticism of induction.

Jakkass wrote: »

God provides a reasonable explanation from beginning to end as to why we are here, where we came from, where we are going, what we should do, what we should not do, what is our purpose, what is our meaning to life.

So do human beings. They can define these things for themselves using free will.

None of these arguments had the remotest bearing on the truth or justification of your position.

Jakkass wrote: »

To me this is logical. Any secular view of any of these things to be seems lacking in comparison, and quite frankly absurd.

Yes, lacking in comparison with your ontological inference from logical dependence. But what it is lacking in I am sure we disagree on.

Jakkass wrote: »

It has to do with the OP. I'm not entirely sure that we do know about God a priori though, you'd have to present a case as to why this is so?

Well I think the faculty for believing in god is dormant in almost everyone. But I dont think that taking such a faculty to a reductionist examination will show the true form as being a faculty of belief. Rather, I think belief in god is a requirement for some people to infer a cause for EVERYthing they see around them, when there is no logical justification to do so.

Jakkass wrote: »

It has everything to do with likelihood. We are determining whether or not hypothesis X or Y is likely to be true.

Testing empirical hypotheses has nothing to do with likelihood. Also, god is a metaphysical inference, not an empirical hypothesis.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is necessary for arguing against Christianity. Criteria for a criticism of God, always must involve a rigid knowledge of what one is criticising. Otherwise it's going to be riddled with strawmen.

Well I am arguing against god in general, and I am doing a great job without reference to the Bible. I am arguing for philosophy's ability to do this without reference to your text

Jakkass wrote: »

If you are arguing against Christianity, it is an argument from ignorance.

I am indirectly arguing against christianity by arguing against the category of thing in which it subsists. However, I have no problem in doing so without reference to your text, because logically, all the gods are the same. All philosophy is concerned with in this case is logic.