The Heathen Hub

A community where people can talk about atheism, religion, science, humanism, evolution, politics, Creationism, literature, reason, rational enquiry, logic, cooking, reading, travel and life.

Spacer
To select different styles:

Spacer Go Back   The Heathen Hub   >  General   >  Philosophy, logic and mathematics
Reload this Page Philosophy:  Defeaters for (Christian) Theism
Spacer

Spacer   Spacer

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Reply

Defeaters for (Christian) Theism

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28-Feb-2010, 03:27 AM (03:27)     61        37583
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makbawehuh View Post
Your god is not omniscient.
There are two different "omnisciences": inherent and total, and it is the former that I'm describing. See here for my own personal appeal to authority.
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 04:20 AM (04:20)     62        37589
Fizzle
Senior Member
 
member


Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: R'lyeh
Posts: 1,328
Blog Entries: 23
Default

So God chooses ignorance? I suppose he found Epicurus unnerving.
Fizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 04:34 AM (04:34)     63        37592
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzle View Post
So God chooses ignorance? I suppose he found Epicurus unnerving.
You could put it that way - God chooses ignorance in order to allow himself and us the experience of discovering each other and the world (and also to allow free choice if you are an incompatibilist as I am). But I don't think it makes the POE any more or less difficult to answer, as God is still willing to allow evil to develop.
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 08:25 PM (20:25)     64        37618
Makbawehuh
Doctor Ragnarok
 
Makbawehuh's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The darkest corners of your imagination. Or maybe right next to you. I'm not telling!
Posts: 4,015
Blog Entries: 170
Default

So, you would have a willfully ignorant God?

...IMHO, that should knock God off the "worthy of worship" list right away.
__________________
"Time once again for an important GNR public service announcement! Don't feed the yao guai. That is all." ~Three Dog

"Remember kids, a smart man knows when it's time to run like a little bitch!" ~Kanta, Desert Punk
Makbawehuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 08:54 PM (20:54)     65        37620
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makbawehuh View Post
So, you would have a willfully ignorant God?

...IMHO, that should knock God off the "worthy of worship" list right away.
If it is "ignorant" to make future possibilities actual, then yes. However, you can say that God does know things exactly as they actually are, since if God creates a world where possibilities are actual, then he knows perfectly all of these different possibilities. You could take the analogy of the chess player: Is a chess player better if he knows the exact moves his opponent will play? Or is he better if he knows exactly how to respond to every possible move that his opponent makes?
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 09:23 PM (21:23)     66        37621
Fizzle
Senior Member
 
member


Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: R'lyeh
Posts: 1,328
Blog Entries: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logika View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makbawehuh View Post
So, you would have a willfully ignorant God?

...IMHO, that should knock God off the "worthy of worship" list right away.
If it is "ignorant" to make future possibilities actual, then yes. However, you can say that God does know things exactly as they actually are, since if God creates a world where possibilities are actual, then he knows perfectly all of these different possibilities. You could take the analogy of the chess player: Is a chess player better if he knows the exact moves his opponent will play? Or is he better if he knows exactly how to respond to every possible move that his opponent makes?
It's not about playing the game, but about how the game is actually set up. If God sets it up to allow evil, then he can't exactly be claimed to be good. Hiding behind allowing possibilities is a cop-out; he could easily have made it all good and removed whatever problems could come of it. He is omnipotent, is he not?
Fizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-2010, 09:41 PM (21:41)     67        37623
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by logika View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makbawehuh View Post
So, you would have a willfully ignorant God?

...IMHO, that should knock God off the "worthy of worship" list right away.
If it is "ignorant" to make future possibilities actual, then yes. However, you can say that God does know things exactly as they actually are, since if God creates a world where possibilities are actual, then he knows perfectly all of these different possibilities. You could take the analogy of the chess player: Is a chess player better if he knows the exact moves his opponent will play? Or is he better if he knows exactly how to respond to every possible move that his opponent makes?
It's not about playing the game, but about how the game is actually set up. If God sets it up to allow evil, then he can't exactly be claimed to be good. Hiding behind allowing possibilities is a cop-out; he could easily have made it all good and removed whatever problems could come of it. He is omnipotent, is he not?
I'm not saying that God makes possibilities actual in order to allow evil, but in order to allow free will. And free will is good because it allows people to choose to do good. Of course it has the negative consequence of also making evil actions possible. It is an open question whether the possibility of good is worth the possibility of evil: I side with those who say it is.
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 02:25 AM (02:25)     68        37632
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

We all do things we feel guilty for, we think we should suffer, we think we should do atonement, we want a way out. You are responsible for your actions, you are responsible for what comes next, harmony, integrity and redemption not up to some distant creator, vicious cycles of blood and suffering enslave us, heaven is a state of mind.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 01:50 PM (13:50)     69        37646
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicat View Post
We all do things we feel guilty for, we think we should suffer, we think we should do atonement, we want a way out. You are responsible for your actions, you are responsible for what comes next, harmony, integrity and redemption not up to some distant creator, vicious cycles of blood and suffering enslave us, heaven is a state of mind.
A couple of points I would want to make:
1) The God of Christian Theism is not a distant creator, but one intimately involved with creation (i.e. he is immanent as well as transcendent). So in this view, human and divine actions are all interconnected, and the problem of human nature is primarily a relational problem: the relationships between God and people and among people are damaged by (moral) independence. Even God himself is a unified community of Persons, with none able to act independently of the others.
2) The problem of human nature is compounded by these relational problems: there is a problem with human culture, not just individuals. This means that it is near impossible to change your own nature, because humans are products of their (broken) culture. So in order for us individually and corporately to be "redeemed" (saved, harmonized, etc) we require a redeemer - something or someone outside of us who is able to change us. Though we are responsible for our actions, there is no way that we, on our own, will be able to redeem ourselves. Hence (in the Christian view) the need for God to redeem humanity.
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 03:20 PM (15:20)     70        37647
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

Yeah, that's a pretty big difference between Abrahamic and other religious traditions, that we are inherently at fault and can be redeemed through god, I can see how it would be pretty seductive to the human psyche, give up all the guilt and suffering to redemption by an all powerful being.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 03:38 PM (15:38)     71        37649
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

and if there is a redeemer, how do you know it's Jesus instead of Horus or Mithra or Dionysus or any of the older similar stories?
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 05:09 PM (17:09)     72        37663
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicat View Post
Yeah, that's a pretty big difference between Abrahamic and other religious traditions, that we are inherently at fault and can be redeemed through god, I can see how it would be pretty seductive to the human psyche, give up all the guilt and suffering to redemption by an all powerful being.
It doesn't mean giving up feelings of guilt and suffering at all - in fact in my experience most people feel even more convicted of the bad things they have done, and see even more the effects of sin (moral independence).

Quote:
and if there is a redeemer, how do you know it's Jesus instead of Horus or Mithra or Dionysus or any of the older similar stories?
You have to look at it historically (primarily) and theologically. It is a serious mistake to say that the gospel narratives about Jesus and stories about Horus (et al) are similar: if you don't think so, I suggest just you just simply read the different stories side by side.
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 06:48 PM (18:48)     73        37682
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

Sin (moral independence) (it's bad to think for yourself).

"Bad things they have done" how can we judge another so? I don't know what's in anothers heart, I haven't gone through their experiences. I haven't even seen a decisive defintion for evil to understand how anyone can be condemned for doing it. Jesus does have some good teachings attributed to him, I like the mountain man philosophy about the lilies of the field and not storing up treasures on earth, of course the Christian based church and state didn't do that. But, I still prefer Horus. I really like Ishtar/Inanna too. She wasn't a saviour from sin, but a fertility goddess who died and returned to bring new life to the world, sort of like Ba'al. Kind of ironic that that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism since it's really a riff on that ancient "false god" of the old testament. All stuff recycled through the human conciousness.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 07:00 PM (19:00)     74        37685
Makbawehuh
Doctor Ragnarok
 
Makbawehuh's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The darkest corners of your imagination. Or maybe right next to you. I'm not telling!
Posts: 4,015
Blog Entries: 170
Default

I want my laptop to work so I can make long comments... I think my blog post killed my ability to do stuff of length for a while.

Randomcomment: I like Innana too. Not really my sort of Goddess in the grand scheme of things, but I still like her. The descent of Innana is an awesome read.
Makbawehuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 07:14 PM (19:14)     75        37694
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

You got to like a girl who stomps down to hell threatening to tear off the gates themselves.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 07:26 PM (19:26)     76        37698
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

And there's an old Mesopotamian myth about the rainbow. It was a symbol that Ishtar set in the sky to protect the people from an evil angry sky god who was trying to destroy the earth with storms and floods.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 07:35 PM (19:35)     77        37700
Makbawehuh
Doctor Ragnarok
 
Makbawehuh's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The darkest corners of your imagination. Or maybe right next to you. I'm not telling!
Posts: 4,015
Blog Entries: 170
Default

She kicks teh ass. A lot of the old Gods do, actually... And with less mindfucking than some others I could name.
Makbawehuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 07:39 PM (19:39)     78        37701
oneworld
Junior Member
 
member


Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
Fish defeater

I'm new at this forum, got a redirect from Perry Marshall
The one stating:
1) dna is a code
2)a code is allways designed by a mind
3)therefore the most likely mind is god.

Way to falsify: prove dna is not a message.
Furthermore he states that a message is unchanged by it's environment.

I received several e-mails which i'm happy to say alerted the spam filter.
One of these stated that only Jesus was the true god, al the others failing in attributes.
For most christians this is the case.

It allways baffles me how easy people use the OT as if it's the logical precursor of the NT, without being able to read one word in the original language.
Bereshit (a beginning) is frankly about the precense of g-d that can only be if people reproduce(continous creation). It's also the only edict in that book. About 22,000 people(and thus all their feelings, opinions, morals and emotions ) are needed for the presence of g-d to be representatively felt.
Mind just the presence not 'taratatata HERE's GOD!'
Since G-d is truth and there are many versions of true. People can therefore only discuss and have no dogma's and decide democratically how to deal with new situations. That's socalled freewill and trying to do the best for the community'. People can give/show mercy, g-d can't, and showing up once giving a set of rules was quite enough. do not shed blood for then mankind and thus g-d will never be. Man becomes adam (created them male and female)when he multiplies.
"Some rabbis are discussing a topic. One maintains he's right and calls up on the heavens and miracles to prove it. T(among other things) the walls bent and a voice (the metatron) questiones why they doubt this one rabbi. But the chief rabbi states he does not care what and in whatever form heaven has to state anything, since this is a democratic discussion between men as it should be. The name: 'I am what i am' is said in the same way as 'none of your business'. The walls straitened but stayed a bit bend. And so they explain that shape. The nature of truth and precedent. And the convenant with g-d that states that people should evolve."
Most discussions and violence, that shockes people are about this state of having 22,000 people.
Judaism confused the issue with tenets from what we know from christianity.
The masshiah was never supposed to be a real person/ god on earth.

I hold it's about reading the hebrew alphabeth in the starsigns around ~1300BCE. On a stele the name israel could be read. IMO it stated: those that slur the us that rule(words of our people). Yitzak (maybe king Yaqura) became israel...one that bends like a reed when wrestling/not agreeing with El. What's your name-i was ... but now; none of your business.

Christianity makes a balls up of the intent and meaning. And any vestige of democracy or free will is destroyed.

Some must have noticed that more then one creation story is told...yes?

On FFI a discussion ran on the forms of atheism and a theoretical phycisist unwantingly proving that god could not exist
book running about 80 pages.
Have to look that up.

But could someone direct me to that Perry Marshall discussion?
oneworld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:02 PM (20:02)     79        37704
Gurdur
Very professional penguin
 
Gurdur's Avatar
 
administrator


Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,332
Blog Entries: 1022
Hi

Um. Welcome to the Hub, oneworld. Feel like making yourself an introduction thread?
Gurdur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:25 PM (20:25)     80        37709
Makbawehuh
Doctor Ragnarok
 
Makbawehuh's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The darkest corners of your imagination. Or maybe right next to you. I'm not telling!
Posts: 4,015
Blog Entries: 170
Default

Does anyone other than myself find this post a little cryptic in a couple areas? *blinks, definately needs more coffee...*
Makbawehuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:37 PM (20:37)     81        37713
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurdur View Post
Um.
Pretty much exactly what I was thinking...
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:38 PM (20:38)     82        37714
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

Environmental factors can cause changes in dna and yes there are 2 creation stories in Genesis, otherwise he lost me too.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:47 PM (20:47)     83        37716
Gurdur
Very professional penguin
 
Gurdur's Avatar
 
administrator


Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,332
Blog Entries: 1022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makbawehuh View Post
Does anyone other than myself find this post a little cryptic in a couple areas? *blinks, definately needs more coffee...*
This is a time to be very charitable. One of the reasons we all talk about religion, atheism and values so much is that we are all trying to make sense of our lives, and we want to make our lives as best as possible.

Troubled people will come in from time to time, we can try ameliorating the troubles. By learning the other people, we learn ourselves too.

Group hugs all round, we are all here for each other.
Gurdur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:51 PM (20:51)     84        37718
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

I didn't mean to uncharitable, oneworld I truly would be interested in some illumination of the part in the middle.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 08:56 PM (20:56)     85        37722
Gurdur
Very professional penguin
 
Gurdur's Avatar
 
administrator


Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,332
Blog Entries: 1022
Red face

I know, I apologise to anyone who feels I was accusatory. I did not mean it that way.

Throw tomatos at me instead.
Gurdur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 09:19 PM (21:19)     86        37728
Makbawehuh
Doctor Ragnarok
 
Makbawehuh's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The darkest corners of your imagination. Or maybe right next to you. I'm not telling!
Posts: 4,015
Blog Entries: 170
Default

I wasn't trying to be uncharitable, there were just a couple areas where it seemed to leap from subject to subject and be confused, and I was trying to figure out if it was me (not as thoroughly caffienated as I ought to be, and short on sleep), or if it really was somewhat cryptic.

I just wanted to know if I was being dense, basically. *grins, hugs*

*frowns* I think I found my post-size limit.
Makbawehuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 09:33 PM (21:33)     87        37734
oneworld
Junior Member
 
member


Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2
Default inherent

so inherent omniscient and simplistic as far as truth can be named so.

followed logika's link. ah buddhism. i recall that revering a god that was in samsara was akin to plunging the enlighted one back in misery.
oneworld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 10:33 PM (22:33)     88        37745
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

At it's core buddhism sidesteps the whole issue of god.

In many eastern religions suffering is believed to be the result of ignorance, in Abrahamic religions it's believed to be the result of knowledge, both are right and wrong.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 11:16 PM (23:16)     89        37749
logika
Member
 
logika's Avatar
 
member


Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 60
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via MSN to logika
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alicat View Post
At it's core buddhism sidesteps the whole issue of god.

In many eastern religions suffering is believed to be the result of ignorance, in Abrahamic religions it's believed to be the result of knowledge, both are right and wrong.
As I've been saying in various places, knowledge of good and evil represents the ability to sin (be morally independent), and the problems with human nature and society are caused by sinning (exerting moral independence). So it would be more fair to say that the Abrahamic religions (more Judaism and Christianity than Islam - in Islam, suffering is part of the "test" people go through before being rewarded or punished) say suffering is caused by sin (though this can be a bit simplistic, depending on how we define "suffering").

For Buddhism, we should also add that attachment to desires as well as ignorance is seen as a root cause of suffering (a belief that fits quite well with Judeo-Christian belief if expressed with enough sleight of hand).
logika is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-2010, 11:37 PM (23:37)     90        37753
alicat
faithless and unreasonable
 
member


Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 586
Default

I sort of agree with you here, it seems ironic that they're different but really not so much. In Buddhism, suffering is being stuck in illusion, which is what categorization of good and evil seems to be, a human construct. Where is good and evil in nature? What's good for the lion is suffering for the antelope, things grow and change and cycle.
alicat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:47 PM (19:47).

       

Credits and thanks:
Basic Style design: Design By: Miner Skinz.com
(much altered by Gurdur)

For smilies:

Koloboks, including Aiwan, ViShenk, Just Cuz, Laie, Connie, snoozer, Viannen,
and especially Mother Goose too.
KitKatty. and PederDingo, and phantompanther.

For help, coding, and/or modifications:

Different people at vBulletin.com, and a whole lot of people -- too many to be individually named, sorry -- at vBulletin.org

For artwork, avatars, backgrounds and so on:

KitKatty, and verte, and britpoplass


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright is asserted for the Heathen Hub itself and for its owner by its owner, from 2008 onwards. Copyright of individual posts remains the property of the original poster, however by posting on the Hub the poster grants the Hub the rights to host and present the posted messages for perpetuity. The Hub is in no way responsible for opinions or messages posted in any way on the Hub by its members. Please also see this here. Copyright of individual icons and other graphics, as for individual vBulletin styles, remains the property of the original owner/creator. Copyright for the vBulletin software itself, and the vBulletin Blogs software, remains with Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd, as in the copyright notice above.
Welcome to a place to talk about atheism, religion, science, humanism, evolution, politics, Creationism, literature, reason, rational inquiry, logic, cooking, reading, and travel - the Hub: a community for everyone.