Do you struggle with your religion.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what circular.

What is Jesus came back and said that the guys after him who wrote the New Testament got it wrong?

Would you say that can't be Jesus because the guys who wrote the Bible didn't get it wrong?

In which cause you are arguing a super powerful supernatural being is wrong and you right.

Isn't that what you guys give out about us doing? :P

It's a foolish question. It's no different to asking: "if there was definitive proof that there is no God would you still believe". Well, no, I wouldn't. If Jesus came back tomorrow, and he was completely different to how he was portrayed in the bible, then he would take primacy over the book. Christianity isn't intellectual dishonesty by another name, which seems to be at the root of the question.

philologos

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I wasn't being intentionally dishonest and I still think it's a valid (but admitedly silly) question on what you as a christian would do if presented with someone who was a direct link to the word and will of god and who a bit like the latest Star Trek movie pointed out that everything in the future as per the bible has been cancelled and we'll kick things off with the slaughter of the non believers and passed you a whopping big sword.

1. Who is this someone? - If it is Jesus, it has to conform to the Jesus of the Biblical text. If this person does not come in Christ's name, this person cannot be of God at all.

2. The Bible won't be cancelled if God is who He says He is. God's word lasts forever. If the Bible were deemed cancelled, I'd have good grounds for scepticism concerning who God was, as God certainly wouldn't be the same God I had began to believe in, He would be someone else.

Basically, your hypothetical scenario is very far removed from Christianity to begin with.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a foolish question. It's no different to asking: "if there was definitive proof that there is no God would you still believe". Well, no, I wouldn't. If Jesus came back tomorrow, and he was completely different to how he was portrayed in the bible, then he would take primacy over the book. Christianity isn't intellectual dishonesty by another name, which seems to be at the root of the question.

I think Canis is simply trying to establish the hierarchy going on here.

The suggestion was that the Bible comes first, even at the expense of someone who appears to be Jesus coming down from heaven and telling you something personally, because that contradicts the Bible.

The root of the question, if I'm following, is the problem placing one supernatural claim over another.

God telling you something in the Bible and then Satan appearing in disguise to contradict it is indistinguishable from Satan in disguise telling you something in the Bible and God appearing to contradict it.

This I think is going back to the Arther C. Clarke quote, the problem of evaluating, in any meaningful way, claims of the supernatural.

philologos

Interesting FC, but could Jesus be really be the Jesus we have come to know if He is infact different. What is the criteria for Jesus being Jesus if Jesus has changed?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Canis is simply trying to establish the hierarchy going on here.

The suggestion was that the Bible comes first, even at the expense of someone who appears to be Jesus coming down from heaven and telling you something personally, because that contradicts the Bible.

The root of the question, if I'm following, is the problem placing one supernatural claim over another.

God telling you something in the Bible and then Satan appearing in disguise to contradict it is indistinguishable from Satan in disguise telling you something in the Bible and God appearing to contradict it.

This I think is going back to the Arther C. Clarke quote, the problem of evaluating, in any meaningful way, claims of the supernatural.

Yes, and Ive already answered the question. Furthermore, I've suggested that there is a loaded assumption driving it: the intellectual dishonesty of Christians. If and a different type Jesus to what we expected came down from heaven - in some incontrovertible and unmistakable fashion - then the question effectively is: would you be honest enough to acknowledge this or are you a stuck in the mud, blinkered Christian. It's a loaded question that provides a scenario that neither atheists nor Christians believes.

But if you want to get torn and tugged in all directions by all possible scenarios - even to the point of suggesting that there is a God but Satan may start playing dress-up - then that is just fine. But where does it end, I wonder? A brain in a jar, you are a figment of somebody else's mind, a shadow on a wall?

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting FC, but could Jesus be really be the Jesus we have come to know if He is infact different. What is the criteria for Jesus being Jesus if Jesus has changed?

I've no idea. Above I imagined that there was some incontrovertible evidence or proof that this was the one and only God portrayed (inaccurately as it happens) in the bible. The question regarding the question is, "how accurately is this other Jesus (The Real JesusTM) portrayed by the bible?".

I'm not proposing the question, which I think is both poorly defined and loaded. I actually don't think it too different from asking, "do you still beat your wife?"

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, and Ive already answered the question. Furthermore, I've suggested that there is a loaded assumption driving it: the intellectual dishonesty of Christians.

Given that I've had long discussions on this forum with Christians who take that exact position, it is not particularly unreasonable.

Though I wouldn't go nearly so far as you to say that these Christians are being intellectually dishonest, just that they have set things up in a particular order and have not realized the flaw in the logic.

Which (again) goes back to the Arthur C. Clarke quote. It really has nothing to do with being dishonest and a lot to to with not thinking through the logic.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But if you want to get torn and tugged in all directions by all possible scenarios - even to the point of suggesting that there is a God but Satan may start playing dress-up - then that is just fine. But where does it end, I wonder? A brain in a jar, you are a figment of somebody else's mind, a shadow on a wall?

It ends when you give up the idea of knowing anything about a supernatural all powerful deity.

If you can't tell the difference between Satan and God then what is the point in saying one is Satan and one is God?

Which was what Clarke was (sort of) saying with technology and magic.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Canis is simply trying to establish the hierarchy going on here.

The suggestion was that the Bible comes first, even at the expense of someone who appears to be Jesus coming down from heaven and telling you something personally, because that contradicts the Bible.

He wouldn't do that because it would not be rational and therefore not Christian!

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, and Ive already answered the question. Furthermore, I've suggested that there is a loaded assumption driving it: the intellectual dishonesty of Christians. If and a different type Jesus to what we expected came down from heaven - in some incontrovertible and unmistakable fashion - then the question effectively is: would you be honest enough to acknowledge this or are you a stuck in the mud, blinkered Christian. It's a loaded question that provides a scenario that neither atheists nor Christians believes.

exactly - because God would not do something which is unreasonable.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

But if you want to get torn and tugged in all directions by all possible scenarios - even to the point of suggesting that there is a God but Satan may start playing dress-up - then that is just fine. But where does it end, I wonder? A brain in a jar, you are a figment of somebody else's mind, a shadow on a wall?

I am reminded of the Tom Waites quote about there being no devil only God when hes drunk.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that I've had long discussions on this forum with Christians who take that exact position, it is not particularly unreasonable.

Though I wouldn't go nearly so far as you to say that these Christians are being intellectually dishonest, just that they have set things up in a particular order and have not realized the flaw in the logic.

Which (again) goes back to the Arthur C. Clarke quote. It really has nothing to do with being dishonest and a lot to to with not thinking through the logic.

If Jesus came back tomorrow, and we knew it was Jesus, then to suggest that we would reject him because he doesn't fit into our image of what he is supposed to be - all of this gleaned form your discussions here - does amount to claiming that we are intellectually dishonest. It is exactly the same as asking, "if I could prove X to you would you accept it?" The answer is presupposed (or demanded) in the question, specifically the definition of proof.

If you want to go down the route of Arthur's quote, then please start another thread.

Wicknight wrote: »

It ends when you give up the idea of knowing anything about a supernatural all powerful deity.

If you can't tell the difference between Satan and God then what is the point in saying one is Satan and one is God?

How very post-modern of you.

But even the words you use - "God" and "Satan" - convey certain defined characteristics of the two beings. I wonder how it is you know that we can not know anything about God, even to the point of not being able to distinguish between him and Satan? It sound like you are privy to some definitive metaphysical knowledge that we aren't aware of.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between Satan and God then what is the point in saying one is Satan and one is God?

What you fail to distinguish here is ontology epistemology empiricism and teleology.

In other words what is, how you know about what is, how you measure it and whether it is worth while doing so.

You seem to take the standard objectivist route through empiricism to teleology and claim if you can't measure it it isn't worth know about. While this may be valid for science it isn't valid of teleology.

You may not be able to measure anything from another universe at the other side of a wormhole and may just say you might as well continue as if such a universe does not exist but if there is in fact another civilization there then the standards of morality apply equally there as they do here even if we may never communicate with them.

Also just redefining the meaning of "Jesus" or "Satan" is fiddling with the map - it isn't changing the territory.

You seem to have been watching to many episodes of "Lost". If Jesus came back and said "I'm not the Jesus of the bible that you believe in" then he would NOT be that Jesus at all would he?

Maybe there is no God or God is callous or evil but that isn't what Christians believe is it? all your seemingly clever argument boils down to is - "what if God doesn't exist"? Well have you ever thought about the implications of "what if God does exist"?

Canis Lupus

ISAW wrote: »

You seem to have been watching to many episodes of "Lost". If Jesus came back and said "I'm not the Jesus of the bible that you believe in" then he would NOT be that Jesus at all would he?

Most of this discussion is starting to go over my head :P However is Jesus unable to change? It's been 2000ish years since he was last seen apparently, is he not able to come back and be different from that in the bible? I'm an very different person than what I was only 5 years ago. Does the jesus in heaven HAVE a personality?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If Jesus came back tomorrow, and we knew it was Jesus, then to suggest that we would reject him because he doesn't fit into our image of what he is supposed to be - all of this gleaned form your discussions here - does amount to claiming that we are intellectually dishonest.

Then a lot of Christians are "intellectually dishonest", at least those that I've talked to.

I don't know what you are getting mad at us for that ...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How very post-modern of you.

But even the words you use - "God" and "Satan" - convey certain defined characteristics of the two beings.

Yes but those are human defined characteristics, which is the point.

It is like supposing the existence of a shape shifter who can take on any form and then saying you know what he really looks like.

By definition you can't, because you can't tell if he actually looks like that or if it is just another form he has taken on.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder how it is you know that we can not know anything about God, even to the point of not being able to distinguish between him and Satan?

Because by definition God is omnipotent. He can be anything, like the shape shifter who can take on any form.

Or he can't, in which case he isn't omnipotent, and thus isn't God as you define him. You have no idea if the God presented accurately reflects the true nature of God nor by definition is there any way to determine this.

Which makes it some what pointless for religion to inform others about God. When a Christian says "God loves you" the first question that pops into my mind is how have you determined this as opposed to the other alternatives. How do you assess the difference between God loves you and God is pretending to love you for some unknown reason by really hates you?

Obviously you can't, so what is the point of telling me God loves me? It would be like me saying to you that Jesus was carried away from this tomb by tomb robbers. You would immediately ask me how I knew this. Imagine how much weight you would put in that explanation if I said I have no idea

Or me saying to you there is a multiverse, many worlds theory holds, and therefore God can't exist. The first thing you would (and should) ask is how do I know the multiverse exists?

Things get more complicated if you then introduce the idea of another supernatural being, such as Satan.

How do you know Satan isn't pretending to be God? How do you know that the true nature of God is evil and Satan is trying to save us all?

And back and forth.

See how much fun trying to determine which supernatural claim is accurate and which isn't. The reality is that you cannot tell anything about these beings even if we assume they exist.

So what is the point in believing one possible explanation over the other?

If you saw an atheist saying they choose to believe that there are multiuniverses, or they choose to believe that the universe was created by a single fundamental particle, and thus God doesn't exist, you would (correctly) say he can't determine that and thus that is a silly thing to believe.

So why does your religion get a free pass in this sort of thing? Does logic not hold to it as well?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Then a lot of Christians are "intellectually dishonest", at least those that I've talked to.

I don't know what you are getting mad at us for that ...

You assert Christians are dishonest based on your opinion and yu wonder why people are annoyed at you for that?

It is like supposing the existence of a shape shifter who can take on any form and then saying you know what he really looks like.

If Christianity was forming totally different messages and not "love god and treat other people as you would like to be treated" then you might have a point.

By definition you can't, because you can't tell if he actually looks like that or if it is just another form he has taken on.

No Christians can't tell if Jesus was luying about everything and god is really an evil god
They just have faith that he was telling the truth.
Whats your point? Duh - maybe an evil god was lying?
That's meant to be a clever argument is it?

Because by definition God is omnipotent. He can be anything, like the shape shifter who can take on any form.

No! Can't act against reason! God won't tell you to commit idolatry or change the whole Bible or say murder is acceptable. Christians don't believe in such a god. God has SOME defining absolutes!

Or he can't, in which case he isn't omnipotent, and thus isn't God as you define him. You have no idea if the God presented accurately reflects the true nature of God nor by definition is there any way to determine this.

I could be quite capable of chopping off your head but chose not to do it! That doesnt remove my ability or my choise. You seem to think that God can't be god unless he does everything he can do such as doing all the evil things possible. Christians don't believe in such a God. But you wouldn't say a mother is not a mother because she doesn't burn some of her own children alive would you?

Which makes it some what pointless for religion to inform others about God. When a Christian says "God loves you" the first question that pops into my mind is how have you determined this as opposed to the other alternatives. How do you assess the difference between God loves you and God is pretending to love you for some unknown reason by really hates you?

Maybe in the same way you assess that women don't incinerate their own children?

Obviously you can't, so what is the point of telling me God loves me?

It is about as usefull as telling you mothers don't burn their own children alive.

Or me saying to you there is a multiverse, many worlds theory holds, and therefore God can't exist.

Why can't God exist in a multiverse?

The first thing you would (and should) ask is how do I know the multiverse exists?

Wrong! You just saw the first thing I asked!

Things get more complicated if you then introduce the idea of another supernatural being, such as Satan.

you havent established a firm foundation and now you want to get "complicated"?

How do you know Satan isn't pretending to be God? How do you know that the true nature of God is evil and Satan is trying to save us all?

You are just switching labels on the boxes! Christians believe in a good benevolent God.
Whats the matter with you? How come you just dont seem to get that?

See how much fun trying to determine which supernatural claim is accurate and which isn't. The reality is that you cannot tell anything about these beings even if we assume they exist.

the reality is that you impose epistemological constraints on an ontological problem.

So what is the point in believing one possible explanation over the other?

In your moral relativist universe probably none. In the one in which Christians believe
is the actual one well... figure it out yourself

If you saw an atheist saying they choose to believe that there are multiuniverses, or they choose to believe that the universe was created by a single fundamental particle,

Or a theist say the same ?

and thus God doesn't exist, you would (correctly) say he can't determine that and thus that is a silly thing to believe.

Well if a theist said it he would already believe. so it would be a logical contradiction!

So why does your religion get a free pass in this sort of thing? Does logic not hold to it as well?

You need to think thinks out a bit more clearly and stop imposing personal ontological positions epistemological interpretations of different ontological positions.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You assert Christians are dishonest based on your opinion and yu wonder why people are annoyed at you for that?

Not quite.

Fanny asserted that if a Christian does this they are dishonest. I asserted that Christians (and others) do this.

I personally don't think dishonesty has anything to do with it, but it was the phrase Fanny was using, which is why I put it in quotes.

ISAW wrote: »

If Christianity was forming totally different messages and not "love god and treat other people as you would like to be treated" then you might have a point.

I'm not sure how.

If a shape shifter walked around for 2,000 years with the same face would you feel confident in asserting that this was his true face? Or just the face he had for 2,000 years? You couldn't tell the difference.

We, by definition, will only see the perspective that an all powerful (or even just pretty powerful) supernatural being wants us to see.

You can't assert from that that this is or isn't his true nature. You simply cannot test this in anyway because by definition the being can pass all your tests and still not be what you think he is.

ISAW wrote: »

No! Can't act against reason! God won't tell you to commit idolatry or change the whole Bible or say murder is acceptable. Christians don't believe in such a god. God has SOME defining absolutes!

I'm not quite sure what your point is, the above supposes God won't lie simply because Christians believe he won't (surely they can be wrong?)

God can say don't commit idolatry and then say Do commit idolatry if the premise that God will stay true to his nature is in fact false (ie God lied when he said that originally).

If your point was that this supernatural being would not then be God because God is defined as something that doesn't lie, I agree with you.

But that has nothing to do with the existence of the supernatural being we are left with. A lying god isn't going to not exist simply because Christians don't believe their god lies.

ISAW wrote: »

I could be quite capable of chopping off your head but chose not to do it! That doesnt remove my ability or my choise. You seem to think that God can't be god unless he does everything he can do such as doing all the evil things possible. Christians don't believe in such a God. But you wouldn't say a mother is not a mother because she doesn't burn some of her own children alive would you?

What?

What does mothers incinerating their children (which I'm sure happens from time to time) got to do with anything?

ISAW wrote: »

Why can't God exist in a multiverse?

No offense ISAW but I'm getting the distinct impression you aren't reading my posts properly.

I've no idea if God can or can't exist in the multiverse, or if the multiverse exists or not.

I'm making the point that if I simply claimed this, without by definition any way of determining this, no one would accept this.

So why exactly should someone expect a statement like God loves you, given that we have no way of determining that that is true or not?

ISAW wrote: »

you havent established a firm foundation and now you want to get "complicated"?

Pretty sure I have established a firm foundation

ISAW wrote: »

You are just switching labels on the boxes!

Well yes, that is the point. And given that we can't see into the box the only thing we have to go on is what the label says.

So what is the reason for saying that the label corresponds to what is in the box? How are we testing that?

ISAW wrote: »

the reality is that you impose epistemological constraints on an ontological problem.

You say that as if it is a bad thing ... ?

Are you saying Christians are not constrained by epistemology?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Then a lot of Christians are "intellectually dishonest", at least those that I've talked to.

I don't know what you are getting mad at us for that ...

I'm not getting mad. Rather I find both Canis Lupus' and your pussy-footing around the nub of the issue to be disingenuous. At least you have now admitted where you are coming from with the original question, which confirms my suspicions that it wasn't really a fact finding question after all. It was was a word play, a modification of the old rhetorical trick, "Do you still beat your wife". In this case, we are all getting our knickers in a twist over a scenario that neither Christian or atheist believes will happen.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but those are human defined characteristics, which is the point.

And that automatically precludes God from sharing some of the same characteristics Why?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like supposing the existence of a shape shifter who can take on any form and then saying you know what he really looks like.

What a bizarre analogy. Despite being able to imagine scenarios where one could know what there natural shape is, I respect your right to hold the faith based assumption that we can't know. Perhaps then all observations of organisms from amoebas to zebras are similarly unreliable - one huge practical joke on us silly humans by all other life.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because by definition God is omnipotent. He can be anything, like the shape shifter who can take on any form.

Or he can't, in which case he isn't omnipotent, and thus isn't God as you define him. You have no idea if the God presented accurately reflects the true nature of God nor by definition is there any way to determine this.

Really? In any depiction of a shape-shifter I've seen they couldn't take on any form. Be it the T-1000 or Odo from Star Trek they had certain constraints. No doubt one could dig up a marginal theologian who published some heresy on the subject (God that is, not shape-shifters), I don't believe it is commonly held that God can do anything. Square circles, married bachelors and all that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which makes it some what pointless for religion to inform others about God.

Why are you even bothering to insist that talking about God is pointless? Do suppose something is going to snap and suddenly Christians everywhere are going to say, "By Jove! You're right. We can't know anything about God! So forget talking about this stuff we normally get together to discuss."

Wicknight wrote: »

"God loves you" the first question that pops into my mind is how have you determined this as opposed to the other alternatives. How do you assess the difference between God loves you and God is pretending to love you for some unknown reason by really hates you?

How do you know that your mother and your friends don't secretly hate you or you are the main character in a Truman Show spin-off? If that's how you function then that is just fine. However, what is relevant here is not your insistence that we can't know anything about God or we must enter into some infinite spiral of epistemological doubt, people do think they can know things about God. I actually have more to say to those people (even though we might disagree about the very fundamentals) then I would to someone who believes we can't know anything about God so why bother. Which makes me wonder why you post here so much. Personally, I think I should do us both a favour and tell us now that I have no interest in entering a debate where endless reductionism is the result.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or me saying to you there is a multiverse, many worlds theory holds, and therefore God can't exist. The first thing you would (and should) ask is how do I know the multiverse exists?

I have no objection to a multi-verse existing. I am open to the possibility, but given our understanding of physics, I don't see how we can know anything approaching certainty. If there is a God, then physics doesn't apply to him, and it is not inconceivable that he has or will make himself known. So not only are you are comparing apples with oranges, you are also boxing God in to fit your definitions.

Wicknight wrote: »

Things get more complicated if you then introduce the idea of another supernatural being, such as Satan.

So what! Since when has your ability to grasp or accept something had an effect on the way things in the universe is? Things got far more complicated when they found out there were smaller things than atoms.

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you know Satan isn't pretending to be God? How do you know that the true nature of God is evil and Satan is trying to save us all?

Why would you assume that everybody must suffer from a crippling inability to decide? That you think the only options are either tail-chasing or believing nothing is besides the point. You don't even believe in God, so I don't see why you are getting caught up tilting at windmills.

Wicknight wrote: »

The reality is that you cannot tell anything about these beings even if we assume they exist.

No, it's not reality, it's your faith based epistemological opinion pretending to speak with authority for God and the rest of us.

Wicknight wrote: »

So what is the point in believing one possible explanation over the other?

Because, unlike you, I believe in objective truth - specifically that there is a God and this God has certain characteristics. And while I recognise that our road to discovering truth is a slow, error prone and halting process, I still believe that we can know - both in principle and practice. That you reject this notion and make epistemological proclamations is a faith position - just like mine. At least I'm not telling people what must be and what they can think.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you saw an atheist saying they choose to believe that there are multiuniverses, or they choose to believe that the universe was created by a single fundamental particle, and thus God doesn't exist, you would (correctly) say he can't determine that and thus that is a silly thing to believe.

You are not comparing the same. I would gather that all religions (or the vast majority) teach that one can know something about God or the Divine. We both agree that one can't determine if there is a multiverse.

Anyway, we both know where this thread is heading - a 5-page special. I'll bow out of this conversation between the two of us and save us both the hassle.

philologos

It's a shame that we can't actually discuss about what doubts we have without threads going down this kind of route.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not getting mad. Rather I find both Canis Lupus' and your pussy-footing around the nub of the issue to be disingenuous. At least you have now admitted where you are coming from with the original question, which confirms my suspicions that it wasn't really a fact finding question after all.

I'm not sure where the pussy-footing is coming from. He asked a question and you answered it, with was a perfectly good answer. You now seem to be saying the mere question was offensive.

At the most it was a dumb question, which Canis himself admitted.

I've been down this road before with you Fanny where I end up defending against what you think I or others are saying, rather than what was actually said.

Perhaps lets just stick with what is actually said, it might make this less argumentative.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps then all observations of organisms from amoebas to zebras are similarly unreliable

They are if the amoebas are supernaturally omnipotent beings who can take any shape or form and control in every detail how they are viewed by others.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe it is commonly held that God can do anything

Do you agree that God can control the laws of physics, and thus can control precisely how he interacts with humans and thus frames any interaction in a way that is indistinguishable to the human?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why are you even bothering to insist that talking about God is pointless?

Come on Fanny. Attack the post not the poster.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Personally, I think I should do us both a favour and tell us now that I have no interest in entering a debate where endless reductionism is the result.

Endless reductionism is a straw man. Figuring out something about God, or any omnipotent supernatural being, is not like figuring out if you are the Truman show.

Certain things, within certain bounds, are testable. If I'm in the Truman show I shouldn't be able to leave a small area for example.

God, by definition, is untestable, in the same way the multiverse or string theory is.

There is a reason people aren't proclaiming they know string theory is true. You seem to have no trouble understanding that reason (they can't verify it).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, it's not reality, it's your faith based epistemological opinion pretending to speak with authority for God and the rest of us.

Imagine if someone proclaimed they know multiple universes exist and you said "Er, I don't think you can know that" and they said it was your faith based epistemological opinion pretending to speak with authority.

Come on Fanny, you are better than this. You have no issue understanding why we can't know multiverses exist (because it is completely untestable)

It is quite simply logic at play here.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because, unlike you, I believe in objective truth - specifically that there is a God and this God has certain characteristics. And while I recognise that our road to discovering truth is a slow, error prone and halting process, I still believe that we can know - both in principle and practice.

Can you explain to me how we can know this if we cannot discount the possibility that God has altered any test we use for verification?

It is exactly the same as the multiverse. We cannot determine if there is a multiverse because we cannot determine a test where the result only points to a multiverse. If you have two possibilities (multiverse/universe) and you can't tell the difference then can't make a proclamation about them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a shame that we can't actually discuss about what doubts we have without threads going down this kind of route.

It is a really simply point, and given you guys seem happy to apply the exact same logic in other areas (such as the multiverse) I'm some what flabbergasted that there is such derision at the suggestion that you apply the same logic when discussing God.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a shame that we can't actually discuss about what doubts we have without threads going down this kind of route.

Yes, I have no stomach for it either. Now that WK has had his say, I guess it is a good time to get back on track.

I see that it has been mentioned previously that doubt is an affront to God. Looking back at Thomas, I can't see any hint of anger from Jesus. In fact, I detect nothing of the sort. Opinions?

antiskeptic

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Right, I'm intrigued. Lets just say that someone came back that was inarguably Jesus (even to an atheist like me) what would your opinion be? Could you not follow him because the bible doesn't say it?

Er.. the Bible contains the words of Jesus so if an inarguable Jesus arrives who confound scripture then we have a choice to make. I know which one I'd make and why. It's a case of first (Jesus) up best dressed I suppose.

Is god not able to tear up the rule book he (through men) created? It's sounds a little Fight Clubby where Ed Nortons character was unable to stop that which he had put into motion.

God is able to do a lot of things: he could lie about the fact he can't lie - for instance. In which case I've no reason to believe what this inarguable Jesus says.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

It is a really simply point, and given you guys seem happy to apply the exact same logic in other areas (such as the multiverse) I'm some what flabbergasted that there is such derision at the suggestion that you apply the same logic when discussing God.

What exact same logic?

The question being asked is inconsistent with Christianity, this is what we've explained. It also involves "begging the question". It isn't someone earnestly asking a question, its someone phrasing a question so they get a certain answer.

The OP if left as that would have been a great thing to talk about. I and Fanny Craddock have already honestly admitted that from time to time, we doubt things and through doubt we grow as Christian people.

FC: Nor can I. After all, in the Biblical text it talks about human beings being refined over time. Paul likens Christian living to athletics. Some times we stumble, and having stumbled, we get up and try again.

Fanny Cradock

What do you think about the nature of doubt? Is it good? Evil? Neutral?

lmaopml

I've been wondering something similar since I read the op Fanny Cradock. I think it depends on the individual sometimes...I think doubt can be very constructive to finding a deeper and truer sense of faith and of self, because it makes you challenge your beliefs too, it helps you know yourself better to know your doubts...and perhaps have a sense of empathy with others too....

I've found that doubt can be diminished when you can identify what it is your 'doubting' and can be very constructive to real growth...especially on an intellectual level when your challenged...

So I'd say it's 'human' and necessary, but can have all three results, good, bad, and neutral....depending on the individual and how well they know themselves.

I'm just hoping in my case it's a tool for 'good'...lol...

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

What exact same logic?

The logic is very simply, it is the same logic that is applied to things like string theory and multiverses, that if you cannot differentiate between models of reality then you can't assert which one is accurate.

There is no difference between someone proclaiming there is a multi verse and someone proclaiming God loves us, as both of these facts are unknowable. And not unknowable in a we could all be brains in a jar, but unknowable in the ordinary sense of the word.

It is unknowable in the same way you can't tell if I'm lying when I say "I'm not lying" unless you have the ability to test me (which you don't with God). Very simply logic here.

I can go into more detail, but to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of this constant nonsense on this forum where I'm engaged in discussion and asked questions then attacked when I respond for disrupting the thread :rolleyes:

Fanny may notice that he engaged with me, I wasn't asking him anything nor was I responding to his posts.

lmaopml

Hi Wicknight,

I hope you don't mind me replying....

I didn't read through the last few responses before I typed and hadn't realised string theory and multiverses and come into it..lol...

There is a vast difference between theorising about something that 'may' be found to be true...( I doubt (there's that word again) the Multiverse theory but not necessarily string theory because it may have merit ) These things are not 'leaps' of faith.......they may one day be examinable and knoweable.

God, on the other hand is a 'leap of faith'. He will never be 'examined'......

They are not on a par to compare imo...they have no relation to eachother whatsoever.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no difference between someone proclaiming there is a multi verse and someone proclaiming God loves us, as both of these facts are unknowable. And not unknowable in a we could all be brains in a jar, but unknowable in the ordinary sense of the word.

What do you mean by 'ordinary sense of the word'. Can I hazard a guess that you mean empirically known & testable & demonstrable to all? If so, can I ask you what category of knowing, knowing what you are thinking occupies since this is unknowable in that ordinary sense of the word.

You seem to be taking a philosophy of knowledge and asserting you know that this philosophy is in fact the case. But as sure as night follows day, you'll have to step outside 'knowable' (the ordinary sense of the word) to know so.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

The logic is very simply, it is the same logic that is applied to things like string theory and multiverses, that if you cannot differentiate between models of reality then you can't assert which one is accurate.

Can it!

If you can't admit that scientific empirical representations of epistemological interpretations of ontological positions are not unique then you have a problem with logic.
And i have previously explained all the terms.

There is no difference between someone proclaiming there is a multi verse and someone proclaiming God loves us, as both of these facts are unknowable.

so what? both are ontological positions.

It is unknowable in the same way you can't tell if I'm lying when I say "I'm not lying" unless you have the ability to test me (which you don't with God). Very simply logic here.

It is not unknowable in the same way at all. You CLAIM it is unknowable ONLY in this epistemology.

I can go into more detail, but to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of this constant nonsense on this forum where I'm engaged in discussion and asked questions then attacked when I respond for disrupting the thread :rolleyes:

good . go away then. i have pointed out that all your argument amounts to is "you may believe that but what if your are wrong?" You reitterate the argument that one can not measure something (an empirical hypothesis) and therefore one can not know about it ( and epistemological stance which DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW from the empirical hypothesis and you then make a great leap into the ontological position of believing in a God as somehow absurd.

And then you harp back to "well God could be an evil god"
You seem to lack the understanding that that is not the ontological position of Christianity!
One can NOT prove alternative ontology no more than one can prove God in the first place!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite.

Fanny asserted that if a Christian does this they are dishonest. I asserted that Christians (and others) do this.

If a shape shifter walked around for 2,000 years with the same face would you feel confident in asserting that this was his true face? Or just the face he had for 2,000 years? You couldn't tell the difference.

you assume Christ is a shapeshifter!
How many times do you have to be told Christians don't believe Christ is a faker!
Asking "What if Christ lied" is about the same as asking "what if God doesn't exist"

We, by definition, will only see the perspective that an all powerful (or even just pretty powerful) supernatural being wants us to see.

You can't assert from that that this is or isn't his true nature. You simply cannot test this in anyway because by definition the being can pass all your tests and still not be what you think he is.

So what? nor can you empirically test if God exists! that doies not mean that because you can not measure it in SI units that you can conclude that mothers do not love their children!

I'm not quite sure what your point is, the above supposes God won't lie simply because Christians believe he won't (surely they can be wrong?)

Yes and God may not exist! But CHRISTIANS BELIEVE God does!

God can say don't commit idolatry and then say Do commit idolatry if the premise that God will stay true to his nature is in fact false (ie God lied when he said that originally).

NO GOD CAN'T! you have been shown adequate references on the subject and keep harping on about the silly and simplistic "god could be an evil god" type argument which you picked up in basic philosophy 101 and didn't seem to graduate to the postgrad class.

I want waste any more time with you on this. If you keep on this off topic stuff ill report you! It is what christians believe and it is based on rationality! Can the "God could be an evil God " here please! Take it elsewhere.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wicknight,

I hope you don't mind me replying....

I didn't read through the last few responses before I typed and hadn't realised string theory and multiverses and come into it..lol...

There is a vast difference between theorising about something that 'may' be found to be true...( I doubt (there's that word again) the Multiverse theory but not necessarily string theory because it may have merit ) These things are not 'leaps' of faith.......they may one day be examinable and knoweable.

God, on the other hand is a 'leap of faith'. He will never be 'examined'......

They are not on a par to compare imo...they have no relation to eachother whatsoever.

I never got this type of argument.

I could have a "leap of faith" that string theory is accurate, but that to most people would be just silly.

Why is God any different?

If we can't determine which version of string theory is accurate or not it makes sense to say we don't know.

Why is God any different?

Ultimately it comes down to humans modelling the world in our own heads and trying to figure out what is or is not an accurate model.

I could say the model of string theory is accurate, but most people would correctly point out that I lack the ability to determine this.

Equally we lack the ability to determine very much at all about God. We can accept as is what we are told by books like the Bible, but we can't determine how accurate these are. We can, as you say, go on a leap of faith, and simply to choose what to believe.

But all that to me seems a silly as assuming a particular version of string theory is accurate just because it explains things.