Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Christ's Resurrection
-
23-04-2011 5:34pm#1
Comments
-
-
Are many today like Thomas who refuse to believe until they can put their fingers in Christ's wounds.
You say that as if it is a bad thing
Why would you not refuse to believe a supernatural claim from the followers of a religion until they have produced enough evidence (see Zillah's post) to confirm that what they claim happened did actually happen?
Do you believe everything you hear? How many supernatural claims from non-Christian religions do you dismiss because you see no evidence for believing that they actually happened? What makes the resurrection any different or than it happens to be the religion you subscribe to?
Any religious argument that when applied to any other religion also forces you to accept that religion, is not worth much as it makes it impossible to disguise which religion, if any, if correct. If we should accept the resurrection happened because early Christians claimed it did why would we not also accept the claims of any other religion where people claim to have witnessed miraculous events?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
You say that as if it is a bad thing
Why would you not refuse to believe a supernatural claim from the followers of a religion until they have produced enough evidence (see Zillah's post) to confirm that what they claim happened did actually happen?
Do you believe everything you hear? How many supernatural claims from non-Christian religions do you dismiss because you see no evidence for believing that they actually happened? What makes the resurrection any different or than it happens to be the religion you subscribe to?
Any religious argument that when applied to any other religion also forces you to accept that religion, is not worth much as it makes it impossible to disguise which religion, if any, if correct. If we should accept the resurrection happened because early Christians claimed it did why would we not also accept the claims of any other religion where people claim to have witnessed miraculous events?
There are many supernatural claims from other religions, I don't dismiss them. But Christ came to give us the fullness of faith, as the Son of God.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »An interesting bit of sophistry there.
You omitted to make mention of the fallacy supposedly involved. Am I to take it you have no response?Well would he not employ evidence that makes it possible for the sceptical people he created to believe?
He would do as he see's fit. What he see's fit might not suit your particular book. Anyway, the argument is that you are blind and can't see the evidence. Lack of 'sight' is the problem not the lack of 'evidence'. Not that these are where the heart of the issue lies anyway. Of which more in a minute.So I have to sit around and wait for him to recreate me too? Couldn't he have done it that way the first time around?
If there is a criterion that must be fulfilled in order that you be granted 'sight' then yes you 'have to sit around and wait' until that time. If ever it comes. The idea is that your choice is involved in that criterion being satisfied so no, he couldn't have done it that way first time round - you can't choose before you can choose
-
At this point in proceedings there is no problem with God evidencing himself in a non-Thomasian way. Your objection has yet to find purchase.Here are the facts as simply as I can state them - please correct me where I stray:
Okay. I'll point out where you might over-simplify to the detriment of the solidity of your objection. If you want to be able to stand as an unbeliever before God in Judgement then it would pay to have an iron-clad case.1. Your belief system states that God created me.
Indeed. We just need to add the corruption (or addiction) that you were exposed to in the spiritual womb, post-your creation. You are born fallen - in other words.2. I do not find the evidence that Jesus was the son of God, or even that there is a god persuasive.
That's fine. There is no need that you do, in order that the key criterion that needs to be met in you in order that you be saved, be filled. Once that is filled (if ever it is) then the blindfold will be removed and you'll see the evidence and will be convinced of God's existance.
I'm putting it as simply as I can - without oversimplifying.3. Therefore either the evidence is lacking, or God created me as too analytical and sceptical to accept the standard of evidence he was willing to provide.
Bringing both the above points together. You are blind to the evidence since birth due to a birth defect that hasn't a thing to do with God (other than by indirect means). Both blindness and the evidence you are blind to aren't the key issue. The key issue has to do with satisfying or not, the criterion God has for re-creating you. Once that occurs, the rest follows.
(That criterion does have to do with evidence. But it's not so much evidence for God as evidence for the fact you do wrong. You don't have to believe in God to believe that - the argument being that you have all the evidence you need to be convinced that you do wrong. That's the strand your objection need follow - not whether there is evidence for God or not.)0 -
-
-
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Thanks for engaging with this.
No worries. I'd shout this good news from the rooftops 'cept that it would be counter productive. This way, although folk can suspect we're deluded in our belief, they can't make a plausible enough case to stand up in any fair mined court.
Which maintains a thorn in the sideCould you please elaborate on your point here? If I understand you correctly, I need an external agent (i.e. God) to change something about me to relieve this blindness?
Correct. Biblically it's called (not at all inaccurately) being 'born again'. It's still you but with some very important changes - not least the ability to be able to percieve God. In simple terms, you could consider it as having an additional sense added to the existing empirically-directed ones.At present I am as I was made (apperently flawed, in spite of God).
Again correct.
(Although I'd share the view which sees your being born flawed as serving an ultimately good purpose. That is to say: in your having the ability to do both evil and good, there exists an apparatus for your finally choosing w.r.t what God stands for (good). Or not (evil). Your being given choice in this matter (even if it ultimately means Hell for you) is a good thing. It's respectful to personhood to provide choice in how it is they are to exist)I am a nice guy with a strong set of ethics, do unto others etc. - so am I waiting for God to notice me to make this change?
Firstly, let's not forget the fact that you're also capable of all kinds of not-so-nice stuff. And that nice guys just like you, placed in slightly different circumstances, are capable of the vilest atrocities. Let's also not forget that the descent to greater depravity is frequently step-wise > you might not be capable of things now that you will be capable of in ten or twenty years from now. No more Mr. Nice Guy..
Secondly, although your response to (let's call it) the call of conscience has got a lot to do with things, it isn't matter of weighing up your good deeds vs. bad and, when you reach a certain score, God turns up. Such elements belong to a works-based system of salvation where your efforts produce a ..er.. positive afterlife outcome.
Have you any terminal objection to either of the above points? If so, it would be better to deal with that rather than progress onto how it is the bible appears to describe the mechanism of salvation. You call it..0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »That's a false dicotomy. In the case of subjective evaluation, the onus is on the abilities of the person to correctly assess the nature of reality. Those abilities are known to be open to error. In the case of God revealing himself, the onus is on God to be able to instill knowlege directly in the person. His abilities aren't capable of error.
That is irrelevant since it is inconsistent with the Christian claims about God.
The Christian claim is that rather than doing this he sent prophets, messengers and eventually his son in order to reveal to humans his existence and nature, through physical methods of communication such as vision and words, all using the standard senses. Jesus was not described as someone who appeared in the minds eye, but appeared as a physical man who spoke works as anyone else and who preached faith in him through physical interaction.
This choice is inconsistent with a creator god who would create us in such a way that such revelations would be problematic for us to assess in any meaningful way.
It is also inconsistent with your idea that you see visions of God through an awakened undiscovered sense.
It is also inconsistent with the idea that God would simply implant knowledge of his existence in humans.
Of course that doesn't prove he couldn't do any of this. But it seems unlikely given the inconsistencies.
If you wish to argue the existence of a different form of deity than the Christian one, that is probably a topic for another thread.antiskeptic wrote: »You conflate the two due to the fact that from your position as an observer, you couldn't tell which is which. Bear in mind that unlike subjective observation (where you can tell (by comparision) that someone is erroneously observing - and so can comment on subjective observation) you cannot tell whether someone is correctly observing God. The fact that there are mutually exclusive claims to an observance of God doesn't alter anything other than (mathematical) probabilities.
The idea that Christians directly observe God or that God simply produces knowledge in the persons mind is contradicted by the fashion he is described as revealing himself in the Bible.
Few people in the Bible are described as directly observing God, they are described as observing his messengers, prophets and Jesus.
So unless you believe yourself to be some sort of divine prophet, if you are observing the creator deity you are in all likelihood not observing the Christian one. Which leads to the question of why if you are actually observing the creator deity you mistakenly believe it to be the Christian one?
Either way it is some what irrelevant to the question at hand, why do non-believers not accept the story of the resurrection and what would convince them of the correctness of the story.antiskeptic wrote: »I agree that my perception of God (and everything else) could the the button pressing of some advanced alien kid playing his X-Box.
That seems more likely than you observing the Christian god (see above) given how interactions between humans and God are described in the Bible.
What is more likely still is that you are simply having mental misfirings from your evolved instinct to view agency in nature. This is consistent with what we know about the evolution of the brain, and does not require the introduction of a more complicated supernatural explanation.
Until your experiences fail to be explained by this I will be sticking with this explanation.antiskeptic wrote: »That is a good thing to do - true or false?
What is a good thing to do?antiskeptic wrote: »God might have other designs than your evaluating him just like any other thing.
He might, but without any evidence to suggest this supposing so seems mere wishful thinking on your part. God can do anything, but that doesn't mean he will always do what is most convient for you in a debate with atheists.
antiskeptic wrote: »You're starting from a certain position regarding how you are made. The Christian one begins with a fall and separated and blind. There is certainly evidence for it all round.
Supposing the Fall to justify belief in a Christian God is circular reasoning, since if Christianity is inaccurate then the Fall never took place.
If we suppose we were made at all the initial position is that we were made as is. To introduce the idea that we were made differently and then changed requires a further justification. Without first establishing the correctness of the Christian story of creation that jump is as yet, unjustified.antiskeptic wrote: »As I pointed out to Monty above, the issue isn't so much how many cubic metres of space God occupies (for that is where your preferred metrology - and denial - operates), it's how you respond to the evidence of love and hatred you have for good, within you.
Your statement above already assumes the correctness of your position. Using it to justify belief in the correctness of your position is again a position of circular reasoning.
The very fact that circular reasoning is a flawed way of justifying things would be decided by a creator deity if such a deity existed.
It is therefore inconsistent to assume that such a deity would wish us to justify our belief in him using a system he himself decided would be flawed.
That doesn't mean he didn't, but at the very least it gives him little justification for getting mad as us if we don't accept his existence based on a system he himself made bad.0 -
That is irrelevant since it is inconsistent with the Christian claims about God.
The Christian claim is that rather than doing this he sent prophets, messengers and eventually his son in order to reveal to humans his existence and nature, through physical methods of communication such as vision and words, all using the standard senses. Jesus was not described as someone who appeared in the minds eye, but appeared as a physical man who spoke works as anyone else and who preached faith in him through physical interaction.
Your understanding of the Christian position is surprisingly (one suspects, conveniently and momentarily, lacking). The idea of God's occupancy within and revelation to, the believer through his Spirit, lies slap bang in the middle of Christian orthodoxy.
There was a time when God did indeed reveal his law written on physical, empirically detectable tablets of stone. All to mirror and model a time when his law would be "written on their hearts"This choice is inconsistent with a creator god who would create us in such a way that such revelations would be problematic for us to assess in any meaningful way.
It is also inconsistent with your idea that you see visions of God through an awakened undiscovered sense.
It is also inconsistent with the idea that God would simply implant knowledge of his existence in humans.
Sentence 1: There is no problem in a creator revealing himself anyway he likes - he commands our level of certainty whatever the method happens to be (what with being the designer of any method of certainty giving). Not us.
Sentence 2: Not sure what sentence two means
Sentence 3: What is inconsistant with the idea that God would simply implant knowledge of his existance in humans?Of course that doesn't prove he couldn't do any of this. But it seems unlikely given the inconsistencies.
If you wish to argue the existence of a different form of deity than the Christian one, that is probably a topic for another thread.
The only inconsistancy I see you give flesh too is the claim that Christianity doesn't claim God's revelatoin through Spirit. It does claim so.The idea that Christians directly observe God or that God simply produces knowledge in the persons mind is contradicted by the fashion he is described as revealing himself in the Bible.
Few people in the Bible are described as directly observing God, they are described as observing his messengers, prophets and Jesus.
So unless you believe yourself to be some sort of divine prophet, if you are observing the creator deity you are in all likelihood not observing the Christian one. Which leads to the question of why if you are actually observing the creator deity you mistakenly believe it to be the Christian one?
So how do you suppose he revealed himself to New Testament epistle writers if not by producing knowledge in the minds of those writers? Whilst I would agree that knowledge revealed unto scripture writing has a significance above knowledge revealed in day-to-day relationship, the means of bone fide communication is at least established.Either way it is some what irrelevant to the question at hand, why do non-believers not accept the story of the resurrection and what would convince them of the correctness of the story.
As I was pointing out to Monty, the sequence of events is a) you get saved b) God reveals his existance to you personally c) you believe in the resurrection story.
You should be able to accept c) in the case of b)That seems more likely than you observing the Christian god (see above) given how interactions between humans and God are described in the Bible.
Again, this view ignores mainline Christian orthodoxy on the matter of God's revelation to manWhat is more likely still is that you are simply having mental misfirings from your evolved instinct to view agency in nature. This is consistent with what we know about the evolution of the brain, and does not require the introduction of a more complicated supernatural explanation. Until your experiences fail to be explained by this I will be sticking with this explanation.
The existance of a supernatural entity doesn't have a complexity element in order that it can be compared in the way two potential naturalistic explanations can be compared.
What you are doing here is taking observation 1 (men have been ever religious) and observation 2 (evolution has occurred) and concluding mens religious outlook is evolved. That's not science. That's a just so storyWhat is a good thing to do?
Whatever you'd like to use as an example of something that can't be measured by science.He might, but without any evidence to suggest this supposing so seems mere wishful thinking on your part. God can do anything, but that doesn't mean he will always do what is most convient for you in a debate with atheists.
Point stalemated so. Which is all I ever seek.Supposing the Fall to justify belief in a Christian God is circular reasoning, since if Christianity is inaccurate then the Fall never took place.
If we suppose we were made at all the initial position is that we were made as is. To introduce the idea that we were made differently and then changed requires a further justification. Without first establishing the correctness of the Christian story of creation that jump is as yet, unjustified.
Remember from whence we came:antiskeptic earlier wrote:You would agree that God, being God, would the ultimate decider on what constitutes 'evidence' (if we are to consider evidence as that which brings about your knowing something is or isn't the case). He need not at all be confined behind the (utterly arbitrary) fence you've set up here.
I'm not introducing the Fall to justify the Christian position, I'm pointing out that the facts of how God might reveal himself aren't necessarily limited by the starting position you feel it is right to assume given your circumstances.
You've (unknowingly) shifted things around from what it is suggested God can do to what it is you can evaluate. From what God can do to what you can do. But we're not interested in you, we're interested in God. And the conclusion I arrive at is that God revealing himself doesn't rely on any ability of yours to be able to evaluate the information. He isn't constrained in his revealing himself by you or your abilities. If a new perception is added to you and God arrives via this channel then so be it.Your statement above already assumes the correctness of your position. Using it to justify belief in the correctness of your position is again a position of circular reasoning.
The very fact that circular reasoning is a flawed way of justifying things would be decided by a creator deity if such a deity existed.
It is therefore inconsistent to assume that such a deity would wish us to justify our belief in him using a system he himself decided would be flawed.
That doesn't mean he didn't, but at the very least it gives him little justification for getting mad as us if we don't accept his existence based on a system he himself made bad.
Have I made things clearer? By removing any reliance on assessing abilities God removes any possibility that we need concern ourselves that we are incorrectly assessing it is he. There is no circularity in an argument which removes reliance on us to assess. Not that I can see anyway.0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Your understanding of the Christian position is surprisingly (one suspects, conveniently and momentarily, lacking). The idea of God's occupancy within and revelation to, the believer through his Spirit, lies slap bang in the middle of Christian orthodoxy.
The Bible does not describe God as imparting knowledge through manipulation of the mind. Such a concept would negate the need for a Bible in the first place. Where the Bible talks of God's "occupancy" in a person it is in relation to his grace in our hearts keeping us from being completely evil.
Your confusion of the two concepts is surprising and one suspects conventiently and momentarily lackingantiskeptic wrote: »There is no problem in a creator revealing himself anyway he likes - he commands our level of certainty whatever the method happens to be (what with being the designer of any method of certainty giving). Not us.
You are confusing revelation with the direct manipulation of our knowledge. God could if he so wished simply directly manipulate us all so that we all just know he exists. He hasn't done that, at least the Christian God has not done that. Instead Christianity supposes that he reveals himself to mankind, thus requiring judgement on the part of mankind.
This is inconsistent with the notion that God made us in the first place as God would be choosing to reveal himself (and thus look for are judgement) in a manner he has made us poor at assessing.
Your notion of how you perceive ("see") God is inconsistent with Christianity. If you actually are seeing a creator deity it is unlikely it is the Christian one.antiskeptic wrote: »Sentence 2: Not sure what sentence two meansantiskeptic wrote: »Sentence 3: What is inconsistant with the idea that God would simply implant knowledge of his existance in humans?
The idea itself is not inconsistent (a single idea cannot be inconsistent). A creator deity can do what ever he likes.
The idea though is inconsistent with Christianity. Therefore Christianity is right and God isn't doing this, instead relying on revelation, or the deity is doing this and Christianity is wrong.antiskeptic wrote: »The only inconsistancy I see you give flesh too is the claim that Christianity doesn't claim God's revelatoin through Spirit. It does claim so.
I did not claiming anything about revelation through Spirit. Revelation through spirit is a notion of our moral centres lining up with God even if we have not read the Law (Romans 2)
This is not what we are discussing, as I'm sure you are aware. We are discussing God simply making us know he exists. This idea not consistent with how the Bible describes God imparting knowledge to us through revelation.antiskeptic wrote: »So how do you suppose he revealed himself to New Testament epistle writers if not by producing knowledge in the minds of those writers?
The way he is described in the Bible as revealing himself, through messengers, angels and physical appearances. Or through unconscious direction.
God did not simply make Mary know that she was carrying Jesus. He sent an angel to inform her of this. God did not simply make Mose know he had to free the slaves from Egypt, he appeared to him as a physical manifestation of a burning bush and spoke to him.
Again your notion of how God would simply make us know he exists and what he wants is inconsistent to how he is described in the Bible. That doesn't mean you are wrong. But it does mean it is unlikely you and the Bible are right at the same time.antiskeptic wrote: »Whilst I would agree that knowledge revealed unto scripture writing has a significance above knowledge revealed in day-to-day relationship, the means of bone fide communication is at least established.
Communication is fine. I'm not disputing the Bible is consistent with God communicating with humans. In fact that is exactly what the Bible describes, God communicating physically with humans and humans given the free will to assess this evidence and make judgements of what they saw or hear on their own.
The Bible regularly describes people being fearful or confused when faced with a messenger from God, or God himself. That idea is wholly inconsistent with your notion that God would simply make us know things.antiskeptic wrote: »As I was pointing out to Monty, the sequence of events is a) you get saved b) God reveals his existance to you personally c) you believe in the resurrection story.
You can explain that all you like but that is not Christian. Thus it seems unlikely than a non-Christian deity would want you to believe the Christian story.antiskeptic wrote: »Again, this view ignores mainline Christian orthodoxy on the matter of God's revelation to man
It does not, as I explained above.antiskeptic wrote: »The existance of a supernatural entity doesn't have a complexity element in order that it can be compared in the way two potential naturalistic explanations can be compared.
That wasn't what I mean. Any introduction of a supernatural entity (no matter how simply you argue he is) is a more complicated explanation than one that works without said supernatural entity in it. Occam's Razor.
That is not what I'm doing. There is well established scientific evidence that humans, due to the evolution of the brain, imagine agency in nature.antiskeptic wrote: »What you are doing here is taking observation 1 (men have been ever religious) and observation 2 (evolution has occurred) and concluding mens religious outlook is evolved. That's not science. That's a just so story
This does not prove that all (or any) human religions are imaginary. But it provides an explanation for them that does not require the introduction of said supernatural agent (God), or the set of them required to explain non-Christian religions (God, angels, the devil).antiskeptic wrote: »Whatever you'd like to use as an example of something that can't be measured by science.
I'm not following what you are asking.
When faced with no reason not to pick it the best starting point is the simplest. The simplest starting point is that if God made us he made us as is.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not introducing the Fall to justify the Christian position, I'm pointing out that the facts of how God might reveal himself aren't necessarily limited by the starting position you feel it is right to assume given your circumstances.
You can suppose other starting points (particularly if this starting point is displeasing to you based on your religious faith) but you must give reason to move from the simplest starting point, other than of course that this starting point is displeasing to you.antiskeptic wrote: »You've (unknowingly) shifted things around from what it is suggested God can do to what it is you can evaluate. From what God can do to what you can do.
I haven't actually. I'm at the start where I always was.
You do not like the simplest starting position because it is inconsistent with what you believe to be true. This causes you a problem, which is why you suggest the possibility that things are more complicated that the simplest explanation.
They may well be. But at the moment you are merely proposing this because the simplest explanation is displeasing to you. That to me is not a reason to move from the simplest explanation to a more complicated explanation, particularly when you cannot provide any support for any particular other explanation over any other one.antiskeptic wrote: »But we're not interested in you, we're interested in God.
I'm hurt Actually we are interested in why non-believers do not accept the resurrection of Jesus or the existence of the Christian God.
Assuming the existence of the Christian God in answer to a non-believer is circular reasoning, as I've already pointed out.antiskeptic wrote: »And the conclusion I arrive at is that God revealing himself doesn't rely on any ability of yours to be able to evaluate the information.
So we aren't interested in me, we are interested in God but really we are interested in you
Anyway, like I've already explained this idea is inconsistent with Christianity. I've no doubt that this will cause you no trouble, but then this thread isn't about you, it is about the arguments for belief in Christianity.antiskeptic wrote: »He isn't constrained in his revealing himself by you or your abilities.
Of course not. But that is irrelevant. No one is claiming he is constrained. As I said to you in the first post, this isn't about what he can do, but what he would do.antiskeptic wrote: »If a new perception is added to you and God arrives via this channel then so be it.
Indeed. For one thing I would know it is not the Christian God.antiskeptic wrote: »Have I made things clearer?
You simple have repeated what you always repeat, that God can do what he likes. You then assume that because of this he did what you wanted him to do, despite this being inconsistent both with how he made us and the Bible.
Again you can believe this is you wish, and as with any supernatural omnipotent being no one is ever going to be able to prove you wrong. But simply because you accept it means little to me given the inconsistencies that you ignore, as does saying he could do it if he wanted to, which has never been the issue.antiskeptic wrote: »By removing any reliance on assessing abilities God removes any possibility that we need concern ourselves that we are incorrectly assessing it is he. There is no circularity in an argument which removes reliance on us to assess. Not that I can see anyway.
If the creator deity didn't do what you suppose then the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
Assuming that he did what you wanted him to do and then using that assumption to support why you think you know that, is circular reasoning.0 -
The Bible does not describe God as imparting knowledge through manipulation of the mind. Such a concept would negate the need for a Bible in the first place. Where the Bible talks of God's "occupancy" in a person it is in relation to his grace in our hearts keeping us from being completely evil.
I'm not sure what manipulation of the mind means but here's an example of the communication of knowledge between God and the believer - assuming you agree that a 'confirmation' constitutes knowledge imparted. It's Spirit to spirit with no physical medium involved.
Romans 8:16 "The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, also heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer together [with him] so that we may also be glorified together [with him]"
Also, when Jesus addresses Simon on his profession of Jesus, the Christ, Jesus says..
17 .. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."
...again, the lack of any intermediary (not to say having buqqer all to do with keeping us from being 'completely evil'). This is basic stuff, Wicknight.You are confusing revelation with the direct manipulation of our knowledge. God could if he so wished simply directly manipulate us all so that we all just know he exists. He hasn't done that, at least the Christian God has not done that. Instead Christianity supposes that he reveals himself to mankind, thus requiring judgement on the part of mankind.
This is inconsistent with the notion that God made us in the first place as God would be choosing to reveal himself (and thus look for are judgement) in a manner he has made us poor at assessing.
Could you describe what you understand the difference to be between revelation (unveiling) and 'manipulation'? Given the direct revelation exampled in the two cases above.
And could you say why revealing (unveiling) necessarily involves our judgement - seeing as your point rests heavily on it.Your notion of how you perceive ("see") God is inconsistent with Christianity. If you actually are seeing a creator deity it is unlikely it is the Christian one.
Gods spirit confirms to my spirit that I am a child of God. This isn't inconsistant with Christianity.The idea itself is not inconsistent (a single idea cannot be inconsistent). A creator deity can do what ever he likes.
The idea though is inconsistent with Christianity. Therefore Christianity is right and God isn't doing this, instead relying on revelation, or the deity is doing this and Christianity is wrong.
Has the above clarified anthing here?I did not claiming anything about revelation through Spirit. Revelation through spirit is a notion of our moral centres lining up with God even if we have not read the Law (Romans 2)
This is not what we are discussing, as I'm sure you are aware. We are discussing God simply making us know he exists. This idea not consistent with how the Bible describes God imparting knowledge to us through revelation.
I've hopefully shown that the connection between God and believer isn't limited to 'moral centres lining up'. The examples given refer to specific bits of information about God (and the believers relation to him) imparted through direct revelation.
What you return to is the notion that I need to ask whether this information is coming from God or from my imagination. And that I need to exercise judgement and this first fence. And that because of human subjectivity I should consider a brain fart a possible explanation instead.
But there is no need for God to deal with me so. He can transcend any doubt that might arise. If he does (and he is able to and there are ample biblical cases of folk as convinced as convinced can be) then your objection (on a rational / biblical basis at least) stalls.The way he is described in the Bible as revealing himself, through messengers, angels and physical appearances. Or through unconscious direction.
God did not simply make Mary know that she was carrying Jesus. He sent an angel to inform her of this. God did not simply make Mose know he had to free the slaves from Egypt, he appeared to him as a physical manifestation of a burning bush and spoke to him.
Again your notion of how God would simply make us know he exists and what he wants is inconsistent to how he is described in the Bible. That doesn't mean you are wrong. But it does mean it is unlikely you and the Bible are right at the same time.
It's interesting that the examples you give refer to the Old Convenant way of God's dealing with man. The sense is one of one-step-removed relationship, with God dealing with man through intermediatories and God dealing with mankind through such men. Such is the law written on tabliets of stone. Such is the temple in which God resides in the holy of holies, separated from sinful man by a thick curtain (or veil).
The New Testament era ushers in intimacy of relationship - where the law is written on a believers heart. Where the curtain of the temple is torn in two on Christs death (unveiled), indicating the way to God open.
You are swimming against the weight of well-established Christian orthodoxy in this one, Wicknight.Communication is fine. I'm not disputing the Bible is consistent with God communicating with humans. In fact that is exactly what the Bible describes, God communicating physically with humans and humans given the free will to assess this evidence and make judgements of what they saw or hear on their own.
The Bible regularly describes people being fearful or confused when faced with a messenger from God, or God himself. That idea is wholly inconsistent with your notion that God would simply make us know things.
Again I suspect you to be relying heavily on Old Testament revelation - in which the sense of God as Father wasn't to the fore. The believer isn't under the Old Convenant however, he's under the New.
Fearful and confused?
Hebrews 4:16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
Would you care to make this point of yours from the New Testament?You can explain that all you like but that is not Christian. Thus it seems unlikely than a non-Christian deity would want you to believe the Christian story.
Whether it is Christian or not could be discussed. Needless to say, when objecting to God as posited by me, your task is to dismantle the obstacle - not circumvent it.
Until then, the objection "God gives insuficient evidence of his existance for me to believe he exists" is dealt with. Due to it (the objection) being stated as barking up the wrong tree.It does not, as I explained above.
Hopefully from the New Testament this time.That wasn't what I mean. Any introduction of a supernatural entity (no matter how simply you argue he is) is a more complicated explanation than one that works without said supernatural entity in it. Occam's Razor.
That is not what I'm doing. There is well established scientific evidence that humans, due to the evolution of the brain, imagine agency in nature.
Hmm. Could you outline the nature of this eivdence. My suspicion would be the utilisation of just-so ism at some point. That observations are read according to an evolutionary paradigm.This does not prove that all (or any) human religions are imaginary. But it provides an explanation for them that does not require the introduction of said supernatural agent (God), or the set of them required to explain non-Christian religions (God, angels, the devil).
A wholly naturalistic explanation for mens religiousity isn't necessarily less complicated than a wholly supernatural explanation. Why does Occams Razor preclude the one over the other?I'm not following what you are asking.
Sorry for being oblique.
Your interest in God lies in the area of his being empirically demonstrated to exist. God is just another thing that is to be subjected to your test tube examination.
God's interest in you lies in the area of good and evil. Which isn't subject to empirical testing.
It would appear that you can't help fulfilling his requirement of you whilst he fails to fulfill your requirement of him.
It was more an aside given your constant worshipping at the altar of empiricism. It's the nature of false gods that they don't produce the goods
When faced with no reason not to pick it the best starting point is the simplest. The simplest starting point is that if God made us he made us as is.
You can suppose other starting points (particularly if this starting point is displeasing to you based on your religious faith) but you must give reason to move from the simplest starting point, other than of course that this starting point is displeasing to you.
As a believer I'm made seeing God. As an unbeliever you're left supposing that if made by God you are complete as you are. Simplicity depends very much on your perspective.
I'm not criticising your position - it is the one to take if that's where the evidence appears to point. I'm just not floating in the same boat as you.I haven't actually. I'm at the start where I always was.
You do not like the simplest starting position because it is inconsistent with what you believe to be true. This causes you a problem, which is why you suggest the possibility that things are more complicated that the simplest explanation.
They may well be. But at the moment you are merely proposing this because the simplest explanation is displeasing to you. That to me is not a reason to move from the simplest explanation to a more complicated explanation, particularly when you cannot provide any support for any particular other explanation over any other one.
You seeing + God non-existant is as complex as you not seeing + God existing. As mentioned, simplicity will depend on how it appears to you - not how it actually is. So, if there is no reason to suppose yourself blind (or scientist pulling strings in your brain) then why bother with it.
I've got reason to suppose other than you do.I'm hurt
Actually we are interested in why non-believers do not accept the resurrection of Jesus or the existence of the Christian God.
Assuming the existence of the Christian God in answer to a non-believer is circular reasoning, as I've already pointed out.
My view why the non-believer does not accept the resurrection holds that he has no reason to believe it. There is no evidence there convincing enough to produce acceptance.
Not that I think that matters too much - since the root of salvation lies, I think, elsewhere.So we aren't interested in me, we are interested in God but really we are interested in you
Anyway, like I've already explained this idea is inconsistent with Christianity. I've no doubt that this will cause you no trouble, but then this thread isn't about you, it is about the arguments for belief in Christianity.
I suppose you could assert that about any obstacle you encounter by way of circumvention. I'll take this as about as close a compliment as I'll ever get from youOf course not. But that is irrelevant. No one is claiming he is constrained. As I said to you in the first post, this isn't about what he can do, but what he would do.
Indeed. For one thing I would know it is not the Christian God.
Has anything the New Testament has to say about God and the nature of his revealing altered your OT mindset? What do you say about Christian orthodoxy that holds relationship with God spiritual?You simple have repeated what you always repeat, that God can do what he likes. You then assume that because of this he did what you wanted him to do, despite this being inconsistent both with how he made us and the Bible.
As above.If the creator deity didn't do what you suppose then the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.
Of course. But the same applies to any of the fundamental suppositions we empply in our establishing what we think reality to be.Assuming that he did what you wanted him to do and then using that assumption to support why you think you know that, is circular reasoning.
As is any claim about any aspect of reality, ultimately. Generally we don't concern ourselves with the circularity that comes from suppositions made about boundary conditions beyond which we cannot see. Instead we beaver away as establishing coherancy of our views within the bubble of suppositions in which we float. For me, the most coherant view I can assemble about the world without and within are found in God and what he has to say.
Remember, I'm not trying to convince you God exists using this argumentation and have no problem with it being ultimately circular for myself. Relationship with God doesn't rely on argumentation anymore than does relationship with anyone else.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Romans 8:16 "The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God and if children, also heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer together [with him] so that we may also be glorified together [with him]"
17 .. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."
Er, neither of those are examples of knowledge being imparted directly to the persons mind.
The first is what we already discussed, God given conscience. The lamp in the dark, so to speak as it is referred to in Proverbs. This is quite different from direct knowledge, as we will see from Peter's example.
The second is supernatural revelation, Peter witnessed Jesus walking on water, himself walked on water (while being afraid) and was saved from drowning by Jesus. IE Peter believed because he witnessed miracles, not because of Jesus as a flesh and bone man.
Neither of these are God imparting knowledge directly into a believer. Quite the opposite in fact, Jesus informed (if that is the right word) Peter of his divinity through supernatural miracles that Peter was initially terrified of but came to accept.
Again your notion is inconsistent with the God described in the Bible.antiskeptic wrote: »Could you describe what you understand the difference to be between revelation (unveiling) and 'manipulation'? Given the direct revelation exampled in the two cases above.
Ok, take the case of Peter. God could simply have flipped the switch in Peter. He could simply have believed. One minute he didn't, then he did. Or Jesus could have simply said "I'm God" and Peter would have just believed that. He wouldn't have understood why he believed it, he would not have decided based on observations or reason to believe it, it just would have.
This is how you seem to think it works.
The Bible tells a different story. Jesus walked out to them over the water, and still Peter did not believe. So Jesus said walk to me, and Peter did he walked out over the water. Yet he still didn't quite believe and was fearful which caused him to fall into the water. Jesus saved him and asked him why did he doubt (ie God was not switching on belief).
After witnessing this Peter and the others professed "Truly you are the Son of God"
At no point in this story did God or Jesus make them believe. They doubted until they themselves concluded Jesus must be the Son of God.
All this was completely supernatural (ie not flesh and bone). No human could have done what Jesus did. But it is not as you describe it, God simply by passing conclusion and reason in the heads of the apostles and flipping on belief. They believed for very physical reasons, there was no miracle taking place in their heads, just on the water.
This is consistent with the rest of the Bible. Mary did not simply wake up knowing she was carrying Jesus. Moses did not simply turn around knowing he was to free the slaves. Abraham did not simply know he was to sacrifice his son.
Your notions are inconsistent with the Bible. Therefore they make rather poor arguments for why Christianity is true or convincing.antiskeptic wrote: »Gods spirit confirms to my spirit that I am a child of God. This isn't inconsistant with Christianity.
It is not inconsisten with Christiantiy. It is inconsistent with your notion that God imparts knowledge in our heads by-passing the reasoning process. That is not what is being described in Romans 8, as I've already explained.antiskeptic wrote: »I've hopefully shown that the connection between God and believer isn't limited to 'moral centres lining up'. The examples given refer to specific bits of information about God (and the believers relation to him) imparted through direct revelation.
If by direct revelation you mean God switching on knowledge in a persons head, no they aren't as I've explained. Read Matthew 14 again.antiskeptic wrote: »What you return to is the notion that I need to ask whether this information is coming from God or from my imagination. And that I need to exercise judgement and this first fence. And that because of human subjectivity I should consider a brain fart a possible explanation instead.
But there is no need for God to deal with me so. He can transcend any doubt that might arise.
As he could with Peter. Yet Peter doubted. He doubted so much he fell in the water and nearly drowned. Clearly the Christian god is not as adverse to doubt as you would have us believe.
There is no need for God to do anything or anything else. There was no need for Jesus to walk on water, or to rescue Peter from drowning. God could have simply had them all believe, just like that. Switch flipped, now they believe. There was no need for him to send his angel to Mary. She could have just known she was going to be carrying Jesus.
But he choose to. Your issue isn't with me anti, it is with the Bible and how the Bible describes God choosing to reveal himself to humanity.
I've no issue with you believing that a creator deity has simply made you know that he exists. But it is inconsistent with the Christian God as described in the Bible.
Doubt at the revelations from God is a theme found throughout the Bible. Most people receiving messages from God doubted, were scared, were confused.
All of this is inconsistent with how you describe your communications with the creator deity.antiskeptic wrote: »The New Testament era ushers in intimacy of relationship - where the law is written on a believers heart. Where the curtain of the temple is torn in two on Christs death (unveiled), indicating the way to God open.
There is nothing in the New Testament era to suggest what you are suggesting antiskeptic, and a lot to demonstrate that the New Testament era is consistent with the Old Testament era in the manner that God communicates to us.
1 Samuel 10 describes Saul at Mt. Tabor where he receive the spirit of God in the same manner Paul talks about it in Romans. It is not a system of knowledge, but of emotion and conscience.antiskeptic wrote: »Hebrews 4:16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
None of those quotes contradict what I'm saying.antiskeptic wrote: »Hmm. Could you outline the nature of this eivdence. My suspicion would be the utilisation of just-so ism at some point. That observations are read according to an evolutionary paradigm.
There is too much research into hyperactive agency detection device (to give it isn't scientificy sounding name) to "outline" here as this post is pretty long as it is.
If you are genuinely interested this is good summary
http://migration.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/agency-and-theory-of-mind/
Which also mentions on of the most famous studies was carried out by Deborah Kelemen which studied the phenomena in children and how they deal with inanimate objects and assigning purpose and place to them.antiskeptic wrote: »A wholly naturalistic explanation for mens religiousity isn't necessarily less complicated than a wholly supernatural explanation.Why does Occams Razor preclude the one over the other?
Because we already have nature. We are biological organism. A supernatural explanation requires the introduction of an extra layer of the supernatural.
Why introduce something extra if what we already have explains it? This adds unnecessary complication, without justification.
Again Occam's Razor.antiskeptic wrote: »It would appear that you can't help fulfilling his requirement of you whilst he fails to fulfill your requirement of him.
No idea what that means, but see earlier post about the inconsistency of a creator deity and circular reasoning that he himself made a logical fallacy.antiskeptic wrote: »You seeing + God non-existant is as complex as you not seeing + God existing.
You are missing the point some what.
A god exists and made us as we are
is a simpler explanation than
A god exists and made us as we are except if you are a believer in him in which case you are different to non-believers.
You introduce the difference between believer/non-believer and suggest that a believer experiences things different to a non-believer.
This is extra, and rather unnecessary, complexity that you cannot support other than to say it is what you believe. Which as we have established is irrelevant to the question at hand.antiskeptic wrote: »As mentioned, simplicity will depend on how it appears to you - not how it actually is.
Simplicity will depend on how simple the model is compared to other models. Your model, with the added difference between believer/non-believer is more complicated than my model. As such it requires added justification, which you lack.
The fact that you believe in the more complicated model is irrelevant to the question at hand.antiskeptic wrote: »I suppose you could assert that about any obstacle you encounter by way of circumvention. I'll take this as about as close a compliment as I'll ever get from you
I'm not following?
You, by your own admission, do not believe yourself to be an obstacle that I would need to circumvent? You do not have reason for what you believe, only the fact that you believe it. What is there to circumvent?
I cannot be troubled by your reasoning or logic if you don't have any
antiskeptic wrote: »Has anything the New Testament has to say about God and the nature of his revealing altered your OT mindset? What do you say about Christian orthodoxy that holds relationship with God spiritual?
I say it is great, and irrelevant to what we are discussing as I explained above.
You use examples in the NT where the spirit of God interacts with a mans conscience to be the "lamp in the dark" as evidence for direct knowledge being imparted upon people. This does not stand up, even to the most basic scrutiny.antiskeptic wrote: »As is any claim about any aspect of reality, ultimately.
It is perfectly possible to make a claim about something in reality without it being circular. Here is a hint. If you start a sentence supposing the assertion is true and then add nothing to justify that assertion, you are probably using circular reasoning.antiskeptic wrote: »Remember, I'm not trying to convince you God exists using this argumentation and have no problem with it being ultimately circular for myself. Relationship with God doesn't rely on argumentation anymore than does relationship with anyone else.
Can you explain then what is it that I'm suppose to be circumventing?0 -
Advertisement
-
Er, neither of those are examples of knowledge being imparted directly to the persons mind.
The first is what we already discussed, God given conscience. The lamp in the dark, so to speak as it is referred to in Proverbs. This is quite different from direct knowledge, as we will see from Peter's example.
Some problems:
1) There is no mention of conscience (a knowledge of good and evil) in the Romans passage. Nor lamps.
2) Those being addressed are Christians and only Christians are children of God (Christian orthodoxy). Thus, only Christians can be confirmed as being such – whereas everyone has a conscience / lamps
This passage talks of spirit to spirit communicating of information.The second is supernatural revelation, Peter witnessed Jesus walking on water, himself walked on water (while being afraid) and was saved from drowning by Jesus. IE Peter believed because he witnessed miracles, not because of Jesus as a flesh and bone man.
Plenty of people witnessesed miracles and didn’t believe Jesus was who he said he was. Judas who betrayed him? The Pharisees who spearheaded his death?
Whatever about what Peter believed on account of his other experience with Jesus, Jesus tells us who revealed this specific bit of information to Peter. It was God himself.
Your engaging in eisegesis – laying all sorts onto the passage rather than looking at what the passage itself reveals.Ok, take the case of Peter. God could simply have flipped the switch in Peter. He could simply have believed. One minute he didn't, then he did. Or Jesus could have simply said "I'm God" and Peter would have just believed that. He wouldn't have understood why he believed it, he would not have decided based on observations or reason to believe it, it just would have.This is how you seem to think it works.
I don't think it's exclusively so. God isn't one dimensonal in his communication.
On the morning after I was saved (although I didn't realise there was such a thing or that I was in need of it or that I had been) 'the peace of God - which surpasseth all understanding" descended on me as I got into my motorcycle gear at the end of the stairs. Nothing whizz-bang, no flash of lightening - just a sure and certain realisation that "everything was going to be okay".
And by everything I understood "everything that could possibly be - there was nothing that ever could be that would trump the fact that everything was ultimately going to be okay"
Did I know it was God? Nope. Did I much later read about the "peace which surpasseth all understanding" in a book I'd never picked up before. And find out about this God who promised that everything would surely and ultimately be okay? Yep!
Does that make two different ways of communicating (and confirming) the same thing? It would appear so.
The reason the Pharisees didn’t believe even in the face of miracles stems from blindness. That might not wash with your view (which would suppose miracles convincing in themselves). But that is not the biblical position.The Bible tells a different story. Jesus walked out to them over the water, and still Peter did not believe. So Jesus said walk to me, and Peter did he walked out over the water. Yet he still didn't quite believe and was fearful which caused him to fall into the water. Jesus saved him and asked him why did he doubt (ie God was not switching on belief). After witnessing this Peter and the others professed "Truly you are the Son of God" At no point in this story did God or Jesus make them believe. They doubted until they themselves concluded Jesus must be the Son of God.
I’m not supposing the only means of communication spirit-to-spirit direct. God can reveal though the Bible too – or in the case of Christs incarnation – by physical presence.
You’re concentrating on certain ways God reveals as if that excluding the way under discussion. I’m not denying those other ways but am pointing to this way also. You need to concentrate on passages that indicate this way exists.All this was completely supernatural (ie not flesh and bone). No human could have done what Jesus did. But it is not as you describe it, God simply by passing conclusion and reason in the heads of the apostles and flipping on belief. They believed for very physical reasons, there was no miracle taking place in their heads, just on the water.
This is consistent with the rest of the Bible. Mary did not simply wake up knowing she was carrying Jesus. Moses did not simply turn around knowing he was to free the slaves. Abraham did not simply know he was to sacrifice his son.
Your notions are inconsistent with the Bible. Therefore they make rather poor arguments for why Christianity is true or convincing.
It’s not supernatural ability that leads to the conclusion “God!”. Pharoahs magicians could do as Moses could do in producing the supernatural goods. And in Jesus’ day, there were those who saw the miracles and claimed it the work of the devil.
-
What do you make of this – Jesus speaking at John 16
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”
The ‘He’ here is the Holy Spirit. And he is speak to the believer. He will tell us things. What is your objection to this? Exegetically I mean.
Orthodox Christianity also holds that the Holy Spirit can speak through the Word of God to believers. That is to say: I can read it and suddenly see something (by Spirit revelation) that you as an unbeliever can never see if you read it from now to doomsday. Or that I would never see without Spirit revelation. There you have a medium but the medium itself is dead without the spirit revealing the meaning. And so the communication is from spirit to spirit even in this case.As he could with Peter. Yet Peter doubted. He doubted so much he fell in the water and nearly drowned. Clearly the Christian god is not as adverse to doubt as you would have us believe.
There is no need for God to do anything or anything else. There was no need for Jesus to walk on water, or to rescue Peter from drowning. God could have simply had them all believe, just like that. Switch flipped, now they believe. There was no need for him to send his angel to Mary. She could have just known she was going to be carrying Jesus.
But he choose to. Your issue isn't with me anti, it is with the Bible and how the Bible describes God choosing to reveal himself to humanity.
Per above. Pointing to revealed method of revelation A, B or C doesn’t preclude the existance of revealed method of revelation D, E and F. Could you focus on dealing with passages that indicate direct revelation?I've no issue with you believing that a creator deity has simply made you know that he exists. But it is inconsistent with the Christian God as described in the Bible.
Doubt at the revelations from God is a theme found throughout the Bible. Most people receiving messages from God doubted, were scared, were confused.
All of this is inconsistent with how you describe your communications with the creator deity. There is nothing in the New Testament era to suggest what you are suggesting antiskeptic, and a lot to demonstrate that the New Testament era is consistent with the Old Testament era in the manner that God communicates to us.
1 Samuel 10 describes Saul at Mt. Tabor where he receive the spirit of God in the same manner Paul talks about it in Romans. It is not a system of knowledge, but of emotion and conscience.
None of those quotes contradict what I'm saying.
You attempt to characterise a believers relationship with God a certain way: fearful, doubtful. That way doesn’t gel with a people for whom there is no condemnation, for a people who are no longer at war with God, for a people who can approach a Father with confidence.
As usual, things are getting too long for profit. It might be best to continue loading up on those New Convenant places which indicate direct communication with the request that you not seek remedy in pointing to other methods of communication. Or dodgy eisegesisThere is too much research into hyperactive agency detection device (to give it isn't scientificy sounding name) to "outline" here as this post is pretty long as it is.
If you are genuinely interested this is good summary
http://migration.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/agency-and-theory-of-mind/
Which also mentions on of the most famous studies was carried out by Deborah Kelemen which studied the phenomena in children and how they deal with inanimate objects and assigning purpose and place to them.
Thanks. I’ll give it a read when I get a moment laterBecause we already have nature. We are biological organism. A supernatural explanation requires the introduction of an extra layer of the supernatural.
Why introduce something extra if what we already have explains it? This adds unnecessary complication, without justification.
Again Occam's Razor.
But your explanation is only partial. It starts mid-stream and swims downstream to conveniently open water. You’d need to be able travel back upstream to the very source before we can establish whether that complete naturalistic process is less complex than an explanation which includes God.
In the case of God, the source is at an ever existant God who creates. There is mystery in that. In your case you go back a certain distance until everything disappears into mystery. How do we evaluate relative complexity if not choosing an arbitrarily convenient-to-our-case starting point?You are missing the point some what.
A god exists and made us as we are
is a simpler explanation than
A god exists and made us as we are except if you are a believer in him in which case you are different to non-believers.
You introduce the difference between believer/non-believer and suggest that a believer experiences things different to a non-believer.
This is extra, and rather unnecessary, complexity that you cannot support other than to say it is what you believe. Which as we have established is irrelevant to the question at hand.
You assume we’re the same because it adds complexity for you to permit that we might be different. But it doesn’t add anymore complexity for me to assume I’m different from you than I am from a whole host of other things around me.
The problem appears to lie in your begging the question. You saying God made ‘us’, assuming we’re the same (because you don't see any difference) then seeing my position as adding complexity.
The question is if there is difference (since one claims he can't see any and the other claims he can) then why can't it be seen. Blindness is an option.I'm not following? You, by your own admission, do not believe yourself to be an obstacle that I would need to circumvent? You do not have reason for what you believe, only the fact that you believe it. What is there to circumvent?
I cannot be troubled by your reasoning or logic if you don't have any [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/IAN%7E1.WFF/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
I was making the point that you circumvent by stating my position “not Christian’. But it doesn’t deal with the obstacle itself. You need worry about the obstacle itself – not about the label attached to it.It is perfectly possible to make a claim about something in reality without it being circular
Only when you begin with certain assumptions the truth of which cannot be demonstrated. Since all downstream hinges on the assumptions on which it is based being true, the argument ends up in a circle.Can you explain then what is it that I'm suppose to be circumventing?
By and large? Christian orthodoxy regarding the kind of relationship that exists between believer and God. You’ve inserted a wild exposition of our Romans verse which is completely unrecognisable to Christian ears. You’ve concentrated on Old Covenant relationships and occurances in that transitional period between the two Convenants. You’ve concentrated heavily on pointing to some ways God interacts as if this changes anything about spirit to spirit interaction.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »1) There is no mention of conscience (a knowledge of good and evil) in the Romans passage. Nor lamps.
You will notice the many times the law is mentioned in Romans 8, and how Paul discusses those who are governed by a desire for the flesh and those governed by a desire for the Spirit.antiskeptic wrote: »Those being addressed are Christians and only Christians are children of God (Christian orthodoxy). Thus, only Christians can be confirmed as being such – whereas everyone has a conscience / lamps
Everyone has a conscience, a God given one. Not everyone has the spirit of God living in them.
Nothing to do with implantation of knowledge, or God flipping on knowledge. It is to do with desire, a desire to do good and live justly and a desire to do bad and sinfully and how the spirit of God in you awakens a desire to be good.
Don't take my word for it, this is an interpretation that is found throughout the Christian mainstream.
No it doesn't, as I've explained.antiskeptic wrote: »This passage talks of spirit to spirit communicating of information.antiskeptic wrote: »Plenty of people witnessesed miracles and didn’t believe Jesus was who he said he was.
Yes, that is the point. People believe or don't believe on their own. The Christian God does not implant the knowledge in their heads, or flip on belief like a switch. He presents it to them, and they assess based on what is presented. This is consistent throughout the whole Bible. Seriously, a lot of things aren't consistent throughout the whole Bible (another thread perhaps) but there is nothing to suggest the authors of the Bible meant to imply what you are stating now.antiskeptic wrote: »Whatever about what Peter believed on account of his other experience with Jesus, Jesus tells us who revealed this specific bit of information to Peter. It was God himself.
I've no issue with the idea that God reveals things to people. He appeared to Moses as a burning bush and he, or his angels, regularly talk to people.
That does not strengthen your case, it weakens it if anything as you are suggesting that what God choose to do with you is markedly different to everyone in the Bible.antiskeptic wrote: »Your engaging in eisegesis – laying all sorts onto the passage rather than looking at what the passage itself reveals.
If you say so. So far the only one I can see inserting things into the Bible is you with your idea of God implanting knowledge in people's heads.
Certainly not. He appears as a talking bush, a booming voice in the sky, he sends angels and prophets to speak for him, and even sending his son.antiskeptic wrote: »I don't think it's exclusively so. God isn't one dimensonal in his communication.
He is described as doing pretty much everything except what you claim.antiskeptic wrote: »And find out about this God who promised that everything would surely and ultimately be okay? Yep!
I cannot over emphasis how irrelevant your personal experiences are to me with regard to this question.
Next you will be telling me God implanted the knowledge that I'm wrong in your head. :pac:antiskeptic wrote: »The reason the Pharisees didn’t believe even in the face of miracles stems from blindness. That might not wash with your view (which would suppose miracles convincing in themselves). But that is not the biblical position.
The Bible descibes why the Pharisees did not accept Jesus
John 5
41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God[d]?
Jesus scolds them for not believing, which is consistent with how belief is described in the Bible, an assessment a person makes not something done for them by God.antiskeptic wrote: »I’m not denying those other ways but am pointing to this way also. You need to concentrate on passages that indicate this way exists.
So far the only ones you have presented do not support your argument.antiskeptic wrote: »It’s not supernatural ability that leads to the conclusion “God!”. Pharoahs magicians could do as Moses could do in producing the supernatural goods. And in Jesus’ day, there were those who saw the miracles and claimed it the work of the devil.
Again, my point. People are free to choose to accept or not accept, as the Pharisees were. And Jesus scolded them for not accepting.
All of which is consistent with the Biblical notion of revelation as something witnessed and assessed, and inconsistent with your notion of implanted knowledge that by passes this system of assessment.antiskeptic wrote: »What do you make of this – Jesus speaking at John 16
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come”
The ‘He’ here is the Holy Spirit. And he is speak to the believer. He will tell us things. What is your objection to this? Exegetically I mean.
I don't have an objection to this, it is (again) entirely consistent with the rest of the Bible. Notice the word "guide". This is repeated in Romans 8
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.
God will not make you believe. He will guide you to the truth but you must believe on your own.
What is your objection to this since you believe God has by-passed this assessment process for you?antiskeptic wrote: »Per above. Pointing to revealed method of revelation A, B or C doesn’t preclude the existance of revealed method of revelation D, E and F.
It doesn't. But merely supposing the possible existence of D, E and F doesn't support their existences. God could, being all powerful, communicate through a flaming motorcycle of death while doing handstands. But that is not consistent with the Bible either.antiskeptic wrote: »You attempt to characterise a believers relationship with God a certain way: fearful, doubtful.
No, I characterized the relationship between humans and God that way. The Bible describes humans doubting God, fearing the revelation and then coming to conclude the truth. At most they are guided by God. Even the believers.
No where are they made believers by God, or does God by pass our assessment system and implant knowledge in us. That is not only not found in the Bible, it is inconsistent with how the process is commonly described in the Bible.
We can keep hashing this through but so far you have nothing to counter this beyond your own faith and experience, which as I said means zero to me.antiskeptic wrote: »In the case of God, the source is at an ever existant God who creates. There is mystery in that. In your case you go back a certain distance until everything disappears into mystery. How do we evaluate relative complexity if not choosing an arbitrarily convenient-to-our-case starting point?
Pretty simply. There is one extra thing in your explanation that isn't in mine, nor is it necessary in either. Therefore your explanation is more complex than mine, and needlessly so.antiskeptic wrote: »You assume we’re the same because it adds complexity for you to permit that we might be different.
Pretty much. My explanation requires only what is present in both cases (a human). Your explanation requires a human and God. Since my explanation (a human) explains it, your extra complication (God) adds nothing and is unnecessary.
Again Occam's Razor.antiskeptic wrote: »But it doesn’t add anymore complexity for me to assume I’m different from you than I am from a whole host of other things around me.
Well yes actually it does. If you assume you are different to me you have split the a human into a human A and a human B. You then need to add God. You have increased the complexity of the explanation to merely explain the same thing that was originally explained by a human.antiskeptic wrote: »The question is if there is difference (since one claims he can't see any and the other claims he can) then why can't it be seen. Blindness is an option.
You are supposing your own conclusion (if there is difference). Circular reasoning, which I've dealt with already.antiskeptic wrote: »I was making the point that you circumvent by stating my position “not Christian’. But it doesn’t deal with the obstacle itself. You need worry about the obstacle itself – not about the label attached to it.
Ok. What exactly is the "obstacle" then?0 -
-
Advertisement