Christians are continually challenging the non-believer to prove that their god does not exist, and like to heckle non-believers on the matter because they say one would need to be omniscient in order to know that there is no god hiding somewhere in the universe.
For instance, one Christian recently commented on my blog:
For anybody to reject something they have not seen takes a lot of work. For example seraching the entire universe. Which they can not do.[sic]
This is not an isolated case. Other theistic apologists have employed essentially the same reasoning.
In an article titled Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists, apologist Ron Rhodes makes the following statement:
Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.
Reasoning like this ignores the broader context of theism, namely that the theist’s god is said to exist outside the universe, that it is not just some item existing within it, like a rock, an asteroid, or particle of dust. If an atheist had traveled the entire universe and found no god, the theist could easily say he was looking in the wrong place, for the theist says his god is infinite and not part of the material universe.
In fact, reasoning like this is really an admission that god-belief rests on one’s ignorance, for it is where one has no knowledge that the theist’s god is supposed to reside.
Even worse, given this kind of reasoning, one would have to have searched the entire universe to reject the notion of a square circle. In other words, anyone employing this type of reasoning to defend his god-belief, would – in order to be consistent – scoff at any thinker who rejects the notion that square circles exist. Since no one can travel the entire universe to be assured that there’s no square circle hiding behind some asteroid or quasar, or under a pebble on some moon in another galaxy, no one is justified in believing that square circles do not exist at all.
In fact, reasoning like this is really an admission that god-belief rests on one’s ignorance, for it is where one has no knowledge that the theist’s god is supposed to reside.
Even worse, given this kind of reasoning, one would have to have searched the entire universe to reject the notion of a square circle. In other words, anyone employing this type of reasoning to defend his god-belief, would – in order to be consistent – scoff at any thinker who rejects the notion that square circles exist. Since no one can travel the entire universe to be assured that there’s no square circle hiding behind some asteroid or quasar, or under a pebble on some moon in another galaxy, no one is justified in believing that square circles do not exist at all.
If any thinker disputes the analogy between his god and the notion of a square circle, let him try to defend his god-belief. Meanwhile, readers are invited to review my own exploration of this matter here: Gods and Square Circles.
Does the theist really believe that one needs to be omniscient in order to justifiably reject the claim tat square circles exist somewhere in the universe?
But the atheist need not worry about not being able to prove that the Christian’s god does not exist. I don’t see why such a proof cannot be available. Below I present one that theists will have a very difficult time overcoming:
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.Premise 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Presumably the Christian will accept the first two premises. Most human beings, when confronted directly with the question, will typically acknowledge that there is in fact a fundamental distinction between what one imagines and what is real, and admit that something that one imagines does not actually exist.
The stories of fictional works like the Harry Potter series or Tolkien’s tales of Middle Earth, are rooted in their authors’ imaginations. No one really believes that the heroes and villains of these storybooks actually exist (or existed, as the case may be), and that the events that move their storylines along actually happened someplace. That’s because it is introspectively obvious to most individuals, by reference to the world we live in and deal with everyday, that the stories and characters in these fictional accounts are ultimately imaginary.
The stories of fictional works like the Harry Potter series or Tolkien’s tales of Middle Earth, are rooted in their authors’ imaginations. No one really believes that the heroes and villains of these storybooks actually exist (or existed, as the case may be), and that the events that move their storylines along actually happened someplace. That’s because it is introspectively obvious to most individuals, by reference to the world we live in and deal with everyday, that the stories and characters in these fictional accounts are ultimately imaginary.
Premise 3 is most likely going to make many Christians uncomfortable just in contemplating it. Many individuals who invest themselves emotionally in a life centered around a god-belief are likely to resent any suggestion, even hypothetical, that the god they worship is imaginary. If this premise produces in the theist a noticeable attitude change, perhaps it’s because you’re getting close to the central nervous system of his god-belief. But it seems that any adult thinker, even if she happens to be Christian, should accept the truth of this premise, assuming they don’t have any qualms with the first two premises.
Subtle discomfort is not what one should expect when he presents premise 4 to theists. Rather vehement protest is most likely to result. And of course, the theist can be predicted to reply with something like “Prove it!” (as if he were going to accept any proof that his god is imaginary). At this point I would suggest that he review my blog The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism, in which I provide no less than 13 points of evidence – any one of which is damning enough – to meet his counter-challenge.
(Incidentally, I had posted the blog entry linked just above, in reply to a theistic apologist who had complained that I did not “prove” that his god was imaginary. Since posting the “Mighty 13,” that apologist has not offered any response to my answer to his challenge. In fact, it was not long after this that this apologist’s own blog posted an announcement that its own comments policy had been significantly revised, and debates were no longer to be allowed there. Go figure.)
The soundness and reasonableness of my argument’s conclusion should be easy for anyone to digest, even for the Christian, so long as his commitment to the existence of the Christian god is not emotional in nature. If it turns out that the Christian god is in fact imaginary, then by virtue of this fact it is not real, and therefore it does not actually exist.
Christian apologists who want to object to my argument’s fourth premise, which states that the Christian god is imaginary in nature, are welcome to address the points of evidence that I have cited in support of this premise. Ultimately, there is a single question that any atheist who encounters a pushy apologist need pose. And that question is:
When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?
Since we have no alternative to imagining the Christian god when believers tell us about it, this question is most appropriate, especially since we’re expected to believe that it is real. If theists think we have an alternative to imagining their god, what is that alternative, and how is it different from imagination?
Christian believers who have invested their psyches so deeply with the ambition to convert the world to their god-belief, have long ago passed the great divide between imagination and reality, such that they are unable consistently to distinguish between the two, especially when their god-belief is involved. But that’s why challenges such as the one I raise are so highly resented by theists, for it ‘heads ‘em off at the pass’, so to say, and slashes off their god-belief before it has a chance to take root. For anyone who is not already predisposed to believing that the imaginary is real, if his attention is called to the distinction between reality and imagination and he is explicitly reminded that the imaginary is not real, he’s not likely to accept claims about imaginary things as truth. On the contrary, he’s going to wonder about the content of the character of individuals who insist that something which they can only imagine is real.
Christian believers who have invested their psyches so deeply with the ambition to convert the world to their god-belief, have long ago passed the great divide between imagination and reality, such that they are unable consistently to distinguish between the two, especially when their god-belief is involved. But that’s why challenges such as the one I raise are so highly resented by theists, for it ‘heads ‘em off at the pass’, so to say, and slashes off their god-belief before it has a chance to take root. For anyone who is not already predisposed to believing that the imaginary is real, if his attention is called to the distinction between reality and imagination and he is explicitly reminded that the imaginary is not real, he’s not likely to accept claims about imaginary things as truth. On the contrary, he’s going to wonder about the content of the character of individuals who insist that something which they can only imagine is real.
The bottom line is that, whether or not atheists really have the burden of proof in the matter, it has been met in spades.
by Dawson Bethrick
261 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 261 of 261@Dylan: Hello Sir. Nice to meet you on Dawson's blog. I hope you won't be upset with me for pointing out a common error in your thinking. We atheists must be keen on always correcting our fallacies and mistakes. I hope you will assist me in finding my own mistakes when you notice them. Of course, I respect you and all the other conversation participants.
You typed "In a universe containing an omniscient god, there can only ever be one logically available choice - the one that was predetermined by his perfect foreknowledge."
This is a common mistake. I have made it too. In a conditional statement where the antecedent is necessarily true, it does not follow that the consequent is also necessarily true.
If necessarily p, then necessarily q. is a false statement. The consequent only contingently follows. The god of classical theism defined in part as being omniscient cannot exist because its definition is incoherent. Omniscience is incoherent, but not because its necessarily true knowledge compels humans or any other organism to do something thus depriving any person or organism of free will.
Rather Omniscience is incoherent because GTC (God of Classical Theism) cannot know, even though it is logically possible for it to know, what we puny humans logically know when we think of indexical procedures, propositions or experiences. Knowledge is usually divided into three types. How to do something; acquaintance with something, and propositions. Some propositions are indexical meaning they are only true depending on who says them, where they are said, or when they are said. The statement, (1)'I am hot.' is indexical. Only I can say that to express that I myself am hot. If someone else says (1)'I am hot', it does not mean the same as when I say it. They must say 'Robert is hot.' or 'You are hot.' to convey the same meaning as (1). (1) is a personal indexical statement as are those having subjects of me, mine, you, yours, he/she, his/hers and so forth.
Some propositions are true regardless of who says them. 'Water boils at 100°C' will always be true no matter who says it or at what time they say it. The statement 'Water boils at 100°C at 12 o'clock.' is only true at 12 o'clock. This is a temporal indexical. If we make a timeless verb tense and apply it to the statement, 'Water (timelessly)-boils at 100°C at 12 o'clock.', then the statement is always true regardless of the time reference. This latter type of statement is a non-indexical correlate to a temporal indexical statement about time.
There are spatial indexicals too. 'The tea kettel is there.' or here, or to the left, nearer, further, this, that, to the right, ect.
GTC, is defined as transcendent meaning aspatial and atemporal. On the eternal view of GTC's omnipresence, transcendence would infer it is everywhere and nowhere, at no time and at every time. This means GTC logically cannot stand in any indexical relation to any sort of knowledge we humans logically can have by virtue of our limitations.
If I say 'It is now raining'. I can know this is true because I am in time, and can distinguish between past, now, and future. GTC is not in time. It cannot do anything at a time or think 'It is now raining.' or know whether or not the proposition 'It is now raining.' is true or not. Similarly spatial indexicals are also not possible for GTC to know. But it is logically possible for an Omniscient and Omnipotent being to know whatever or do whatever a non-Omniscient and non-Omnipotent being can know or do. This is a contra-diction that renders GTC incoherent and thus impossible to exist.
See Nicholas Everitt's book The Non-Existence of God chapter 15.
Nide: “Sir, My position stands.”
Like a hideous monument built on quicksand.
Nide: “Men have no desire to believe.”
Indeed. That’s why Christianity requires men to become like little children, who get lost in the fantasy-world of make-believe.
Since you admit that it’s ultimately a matter of *desiring* to believe, I’m hopeful that you can see the great divide between the rational approach to reality, and the mystical approach that you have adopted. On the mystical approach, you believe things essentially because you *want* them to be true. On a rational approach, we are guided by the primacy of existence: we discover facts in the world through a process of reason, and build our knowledge in accordance with logical principles. There can be no compromise between the two, just as there can be no compromise between poison and food.
What could possibly be your problem with the rational approach that I have described here?
Nide: “They are perfectly happy carrying out the sinful desires of their heart.”
The part that you fear most is the prospect that they are *happy*. You can’t stand other people achieving happiness, so you broad-brush them with the characterization that their desires as somehow immoral or wrong. How sad for you! Your unhappiness in life infects your whole being.
Nide: “The holy spirit simply regenarates men and grants them the ability to repent and believe.”
I’ve asked you a series of questions about fatherhood, and these are an opportunity to display your superior moral understanding, something we should expect from you if what you claim is true. And yet, you avoid addressing my questions. Your credibility is basically nil.
Nide: “They freely choose to do this.”
And that burns you up, doesn’t it? You just can’t stand to see other human beings living freely. The church and its legacy of oppression are your rightful home.
Nide: “Not sure where you got the idea that he forces men to do anything.”
From the bible for one. The book of Acts represents the apostles being lead around as if they were remote-controlled robots. They’re basically puppets. Plus I quoted three passages from Van Til and Bahnsen which can only be taken to mean that men have no will of their own, that we are all just puppets dancing to whatever tune the ruling consciousness chooses to play.
Regards,
Dawson
Actually, Sir it's your credibilty that is nil.
I posed the question first. So why haven't you answered?
Afraid of the consequences aren't you?
Thanks for the bahnsen and vantil quotes.
I really enjoyed them.
Sir, you made the claim that it burns me up to see others living freely.
Do you lock your car doors?
Do you lock your doors at
night?
Do you lock your doors when you are leaving your house?
Can you explain, Sir, why there are law enforcement agencies?
murder, lying , cheating, stealing etc.
Is a society plagued by these things free?
Enjoy.
@r_c321: In the prior thread I requested of Tony that he obey the text of Mark 16:18 with a public demonstration of how he can drink deadly cyanide Kool-aid and not suffer harm due to super-natural intervention of his god. In that message I noted that
"The claim made by Christian mystics that they have a superior mode of knowing is just as trustworthy as are the claims of Joseph Smith and his buddies that a magic messenger named Moroni showed Smith were the golden plates were buried and subsequently translated the text of the book of Mormon. The Mormon claims are just as good as the claims made by Muhammad that a magic messenger showed up with a flying horse and took him to the realm of Allah for a guided tour. The take away is that talk is cheap. Tony and his buddies should put their money where their mouths are, that is so to say 'Put up or shut up'."
I would like to ask you the same thing. Can you show your god belief is better than that of Mormons or Muslims by means of a public demonstration broadcast live on the net via web cam, where you drink a 100% fatal dose of cyanide laced kool-aid in demonstration of the veracity of Mark 16:18? Or are you afraid your fairytale god won't save you from a horrible but quick death? If the later, then you're not really a believer and are tacitly acknowledging that Joseph Smith and Muhammad were just as trustworthy as Paul and Jesus.
And just for fun check out the Jonestown Massacre Pics. Mark 16:18 worked real well for those folks don't you think.
Robert,
How about you answer the questions
that I have posed to you. Maybe then I will respond. Your credibilty is in question.
As you have made many false accusations.
r_c321 I have looked up the word prayer In two dictionaries and the definition that you have provided seems not to be there. Can you give the link to your source.
In my previous post where I advised you to 'pray' to yourself as part of deconverting from your riduculous Christian religion I did use the word prayer. So what? Your religion is still false and you are still delusional. You have no arguments that show your god is even possible let alone actually exists. Your only hope of ever obtaining mental health and life as a man is to renounce Christianity and accept that you and only you are responsible for your life.
But in answer to your question The forth definition of the word pray as defined at dictionary.com is "to make earnest petition to (a person).
definition of the word pray
However, straining at gnats and swallowing camels gets you nothing.
r_c321 How can layman confidently assert that I will still call God Good if he did approve of (rape, theft, etc.)?
I don't know how Layman justified his positions. So what? His point has merit. If you would not approve of rape, theft, etc., in spite of your god declaring such to be the good, then you are operating with an idea that goodness occurs independently and objectively apart from the alleged divine creative action of your god. This strongly infers you believe that your god is good because it comports itself in harmony with this independent standard of the good.
This is a major problem for your positon relative to the problem of evil and your deployment of a sufficient moral reason thedicy. Asserting that your god did not create the good carries with it an axiomatic corollary that this existence of ours is not the best possible world.
1) If r_c321's god is to escape the contradiction of the problem of evil, this must be the best possible world.
2) If r_c321's god did not create the good, then this is not the best possible world.
3) r_c321's god did not create the good.
4)This is not the best possible world.
5) By Modus Tollens, r_c321's god does not escape the contradiction of the problem of evil.
6) If the problem of evil cannot be resolved, r_c321's god does not exist.
7) The problem of evil cannot be resolved.
8) r_c321's god does not exist.
In Christianity, there is a price to pay for either believing and arguing or not that Yahweh is creator of all.
Nide: “Actually, Sir it's your credibilty that is nil.” [sic]
How so? For one, I’m not the one affirming the existence of some bodiless, conscious being which we can only imagine. Also, I’ve taken the time and care to develop my points, defend my position and substantiate my criticisms, and to educate you – to whatever degree that is possible – not only about your position’s errors, but also about a proper alternative that is available to you if you choose to explore it. Moreover I have remained consistent with my overall position at every point, I have endeavored to present my views with clarity, and have maintained my willingness to consider your questions throughout the dialogue. Additionally I have exercised great patience and charity with you in our discussion. So how is my credibility being undermined?
On the other hand, you have made numerous charges without any argument whatsoever, have failed to explain nearly all of your statements, and have continually evaded questions directed to you about your worldview that have been raised throughout the discussion. Even when you say my “credibilty”[sic] is nil, you don’t explain why. You give yet another example of why you have no credibility here.
Indeed, if I have no credibility, why do you come here in the first place? It is you who has sought me out; I have not been seeking you out. You came to me. Is it your habit to go to people who you think have little or no credibility? Do your words and your actions ever match?
Nide: “I posed the question first. So why haven't you answered?”
Nide, as I mentioned, I have been more than patient in considering, responding to and challenging your questions and comments. And yet, when questions are posed to you, you continually – almost entirely without fail – seek to distract or redirect, and evade the questions posed to you. If your position originates from an omniscient, infallible and “holy” source, I can’t understand for the life of me why you would find it necessary to do this. Don’t get me wrong, you’re not the only Christian who has this habit. Most Christians I encounter have it, some as bad as you.
It should be borne mind that you have tried to pass yourself off as one of the Christian god’s “chosen,” which can only mean: you think you have a supernatural, omniscient and infallible consciousness in your corner. You say that the Christian bible is “the word of God,” and that everything in it is true and relevant. It seems that, given these aspects of your posture before us, you should be far more willing – even excited – to answer questions posed to you in this forum.
At any rate, which question did you want me to answer? Can you pose it again?
Nide: “Afraid of the consequences aren't you?”
Now you’re projecting. It’s your worldview which seats knowledge on a foundation of fear, remember? Go look up Proverbs 1:7 again. It’s your worldview that is riddled with fear, not mine.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide: “Sir, you made the claim that it burns me up to see others living freely.”
Yes, because, like other Christians, you’re continually complaining about other people being “perfectly happy carrying out” the “desires of their heart.” What conclusion are we to draw when Christians continually sulk about other people enjoying their lives without their approval?
Nide: “Do you lock your car doors? Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock your doors when you are leaving your house? Can you explain, Sir, why there are law enforcement agencies?”
Yes to all four questions. I do lock my car door, I do lock my doors at night, and during the day, too. And yes, law enforcement agencies exist. All these have the same root: human beings need values in order to live. We need to achieve those values that we need to live, and we need to protect and preserve those values as well. I lock my doors and preserve my values because I have adopted a worldview which recognizes my right to exist for my own sake and endorses my right to act in the interest of my own values – i.e., selfishness. I protect my values because I have not adopted a worldview which teaches that I have a duty to sacrifice them to the first passer-by, or to some invisible magic being that is indistinguishable from something we may merely be imagining.
If men adopted the only attitude one can reasonably infer that the Christian god would have if it existed and had the nature and behavior record that the bible attributes to it, we would have no law enforcement agencies. The Christian god has no need for values, for it would not act to achieve and/or preserve them in the first place. Plus, just as in the case of the garden myth, if someone’s values were being threatened, people adopting the Christian god’s attitude would just stand idly by watching the scene and doing nothing to intervene and remove the threat, all the while saying “Tsk, tsk, ye should’ve listened, ye cursed.” Good thing we don’t adopt your worldview!
Nide: “murder, lying , cheating, stealing etc. Is a society plagued by these things free?”
I’ve never lived in a society that I would characterize as “plagued by these things.” Luckily people do not take Christianity seriously enough in western culture, so we aren’t living like the primitives of Paul’s day.
Regards,
Dawson
Nide,
I’m still unclear on your answer to my question. So I’ll pose it again.
When I imagine your god, how is what I’m imagining *not* imaginary?
I’m hoping that, since you seem now to think it’s important for people to answer questions posed to them, that you’ll consider addressing mine for a change.
Regards,
Dawson
Robert wrote: “I don't know how Layman justified his positions. So what? His point has merit. If you would not approve of rape, theft, etc., in spite of your god declaring such to be the good, then you are operating with an idea that goodness occurs independently and objectively apart from the alleged divine creative action of your god. This strongly infers you believe that your god is good because it comports itself in harmony with this independent standard of the good.”
Good points. The classic Euthyphro dilemma. It makes theists squirm every time it’s raised, and for good reason.
A key premise underlying the entire activity of moral judgment is the recognition that all chosen action – regardless of who it is who is performing it or who has done the choosing – is subject to moral evaluation. This is simply in keeping with the principle (which I realize is completely to Christianity) that morality is properly conceived as the application of reason to the realm of choice. Keep in mind what morality (on a rational basis) is: morality is a code of values which guides one’s choices and actions. When a volitional agent makes one choice as opposed to another, it either chooses arbitrarily (for no reason at all), or it chooses for some reason. Moral evaluation begins with answering the question of whether the choice made was made arbitrarily or for a reason. If it was arbitrarily chosen, then it has no moral value, for such a policy can only lead ultimately to the destruction of values. If it was chosen for a reason, then that reason must be identified and evaluated for its moral appropriateness. Etc.
So the whole idea that a volitional agent is exempt from moral judgment can only imply that those seeking to exempt it from moral judgment want to hide something, possibly the fact that its choices are made arbitrarily, or that the reasons behind its choices are morally inappropriate.
So, with this in mind, observe whether or not Christians are comfortable with their god’s choices and actions being morally judged. Historically they resent it entirely. And this just tells us about themselves and the god they imagine. This is why they seek to implicate you as the judge – they want to intimidate you so that you abandon moral judgment. What value does a worldview which requires men to abandon moral judgment have for human life?
I submit that it has no value for man, and that it indeed can only lead to destruction.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
And if Nide comes back with a response such as, “Dear Sir, One doesn’t imagine God. Rather, one experiences God,” I would direct him to “Year One” of your blog, and your entry:
“Is Human Experience Evidence of the Christian God?” (June 6, 2005)
And if he doesn’t come back with this response, I would urge him to read it anyway. It's a great read.
Ydemoc
Wow, I just read all those comments on my iPod. My eyes are burning and my head is spinning. Can you guys talk about Gosh and Judas Priest again? That was some of the funniest sh*t I've seen in ages---aside from the silliness of Christianity of course.
I think Judas Priest is going to lead one to Heck for sure. Rob Halford was gay, so that's a one way ticket to eternal heck-fire. Ps. British Steel is the best album.
Hi, Drew, and thanks for recognizing my humor. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
The rest of the bit goes like this:
------------------------------
Actually, I need to clarify a few things: After consulting with various theologians, I was informed that there is currently much division amongst the faithful as to what constitutes "salvation" in our worship of Gosh.
Though previously I had maintained that it was belief in Gosh's son, "Geez," some denominations subscribe to belief in Judas Priest! and are guided by the Holy Moley.
In any event, we all celebrate the birth of our savior every December 25 - a day for us that has come to be known as Jiminy Christmas.
In some parts of the world, people do not worship our Gosh at all, but choose to worship a false Gosh known as Gol. In China, this Gosh is better known as Gol Lee. Believers of Gol Lee maintain that he is the the first to pose the well-known, yet still unanswered question, "What in Tarnation!?"
---------
This all came about from an email correspondence I had with a friend. He used the phrase "by gosh," and it hit me: What if people worshiped "Gosh"? And if they didn't, what would happen to them?
What you've read above is about as far as I've developed it.
Ydemoc
I wrote: "What you've read above is about as far as I've developed it."
Actually, that's not entirely true. For I have recently "unearthed" an ancient document (maybe a couple months old). And though it only consists of fragments, here is what I've been able make of it:
---------------
What is interesting to note is that in the Gol Lee tradition, Gol Lee purportedly had a son also, whom he sent to earth to save man from his sinful nature.
The name of Gol Lee's son is Gol Lee G. Even today you will see the tradition's influence, especially in the hip-hop community, where his name is often used in the greeting, "What up, G?"
--------------------------------
Now that's truly about as far as I've gotten.
Ydemoc
When I imagine your god, how is what I’m imagining *not* imaginary?
Romans 1 " 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Hezekiah Ahaz,
2 corianthians 10: 5 "5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
P.S. Ydemoc I will be responding soon to your imaginations.
Sir you said: " If it was arbitrarily chosen, then it has no moral value, for such a policy can only lead ultimately to the destruction of values. If it was chosen for a reason, then that reason must be identified and evaluated for its moral appropriateness. Etc."
So, is it apporiate for Men to Murder another Men?
So, what you are really saying is God had no purpose in commanding Men not to murder?
H.A,
2 corinthians 10: 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Sir, You said: "I’ve never lived in a society that I would characterize as “plagued by these things.” Luckily people do not take Christianity seriously enough in western culture, so we aren’t living like the primitives of Paul’s day.
Can you explain to me, Sir, why our prisons and Jails are filled to their capacity?
I asked: “When I imagine your god, how is what I’m imagining *not* imaginary?”
Nide responded by quoting Romans 1:18-20:
"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Here’s the only way I can interpret this as a response to my question:
First I must imagine that there is a god (1). Then I must imagine that this god has wrath (2), it is “revealing” its wrath (3), and that it is revealing its wrath from something else that I must imagine, namely something called “heaven” (4). Then I must imagine that people (apparently *all* people) are “wicked” and “unrighteous” (5), that they are somehow aware of this god’s revealed wrath (6), and that they all “suppress” this awareness “by their wickedness” (7). Then I must imagine that “what may be known” about this god that I must imagine, is somehow “plain” to these wicked people (8). Then I must imagine that the reason why “what may be known about God” is “made plain” to everyone is that its “invisible qualities… have been clearly seen” by the wicked people (9), and thereby I must imagine that they are therefore without excuse (10).
In order to consider Nide’s response to my question, I had to use my imagination no less than 10 separate times. So again, how is what I imagine when I imagine Nide’s god, not imaginary?
Blank out.
I see that Nide is still quoting a passage that contains a contradiction, even though this has been pointed out to him.
How anyone can think that quoting “scripture” is going to address my question, is absolutely beyond me. It just requires me to use my imagination all the more!!! It does not explain how what I imagine is not imaginary.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Another excellent response to Nide.
It has been said many times, but Nide seems unable to process the fact that one can't get anywhere by positing the existence of Harry Potter by citing quotes from a Harry Potter book.
Actually, the idea of Harry Potter existing might have even more credibility than does the idea of bible god: With Harry Potter, at least we know who wrote it. The same can't be said of the bible, at least not all of it.
Ydemoc
Nide: “Can you explain to me, Sir, why our prisons and Jails are filled to their capacity?”
There are numerous causes for this. Broadly speaking, those prisons that are filled to their capacity are full because our legal system has filled them up. In many cases, people are incarcerated for “victimless” crimes, such as prostitution and drug use. We have a legal system that does not consistently recognize man’s right to exist for his own sake, and thus stifles his freedom to engage in mutually consensual exchanges and consume substances of one’s own choosing. In effect, they’re full because our system has put a limit on our freedoms.
I’m not convinced that everyone in our prisons is necessarily a threat to the rest of the individuals in our society. Someone who’s been incarcerated because he was in possession of marijuana, for instance, is not necessarily a threat to other individuals, just as someone who enjoys a beer is not necessarily a threat to others. But the one is illegal while the other is legal (though still regulated). Similarly a person who wants to trade sexual favors for money is not violating anyone’s individual rights by doing so. So locking them away may actually not be “protecting” society as many seem to think.
There’s also the philosophic-cultural aspect to consider. Most Americans, for instance, have been indoctrinated to one extent or another on a worldview which sanctions the pursuit of the unearned. Christianity is the chief culprit of this in the west, since it is all about accepting and pursuing the unearned. Scratch the surface of any actual injustice, and you’ll find two accomplices behind it: the active pursuit of the unearned, and intellectual default. Both are modeled as mental ideals by Christianity.
Regards,
Dawson
I wrote: "If it was arbitrarily chosen, then it has no moral value, for such a policy can only lead ultimately to the destruction of values. If it was chosen for a reason, then that reason must be identified and evaluated for its moral appropriateness. Etc."
Nide asked: “So, is it apporiate for Men to Murder another Men?” [sic]
Absolutely not.
Nide: “So, what you are really saying is God had no purpose in commanding Men not to murder?”
Nide, the 10 commandments, which arguably includes an injunction against murder, has been around for millennia. It’s no secret doctrine, for Christians have been preaching the 10 commandments from the hilltops since the inception of their cult. And yet murders still take place. So what good has commanding men not to murder done for any society? It still happens.
Regards,
Dawson
Sir, I Resolved the Supposed contradiction for you.
Your bias towards the bible does not allow to accept it.
So, in other words our prisons and jails are merely filled with petty criminals. Am I really suppose to believe your answer?
You gave one good response we are both in agreement that murder is inappropriate. Good. This is a first.
However,
Your second response is evasive. Does god have a purpose for his law? I will answer for you.
The law of God was not Giving to make Men Good.
The law came to expose the sin of Men.
Men had already committed adultery, murder etc.
Paul said it best. Romans 7:7
"What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
So, The law is extremely Good. Why?
Galatians 3 "19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
H.A,
2 corinthians 10: 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Nide: “Sir, I Resolved the Supposed contradiction for you.”
Only in your imagination, Nide. You have nowhere shown how one can coherently say that something is both *invisible* and at the same time “clearly seen.” Check the record. You’ll not be able to produce for me anything you’ve stated which shows how something can be both of these at the same time.
Nide: “Your bias towards the bible does not allow to accept it.”
Nide, if I have a “bias,” it is toward reason. If you have a problem because someone has a “bias” toward reason, well, all I can say is, that’s not my problem. Again to quote Rand: “"Intellectually, to rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies - that one has no rational arguments to offer." (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 197).
Nide: “So, in other words our prisons and jails are merely filled with petty criminals.”
Of course, I nowhere stated this. Do you ever read anything *carefully*? Do you ever consider the overall context of a point that your opponents make, especially when your opponent is careful to provide that context?
Nide: “Am I really suppose to believe your answer?”
Nide, you believe that what you imagine is real. I can’t expect you to believe things that are rational.
If you aren’t going to accept anything I say, then why do you keep coming back to me?
Nide: “You gave one good response we are both in agreement that murder is inappropriate.”
Actually, you’re not in agreement with me, because I said that murder is *absolutely* inappropriate. You cannot affirm any moral pronouncement absolutely, since all morality on your view ultimately boils down to what the ruling consciousness wishes. It can wish whatever, and whatever it wishes, is the moral, because it wishes it (cf. the Euthyphro dilemma that Ydemoc raised earlier).
The lesson of Abraham and his son Isaac is not as Christians typically try to make it out to be. They usually try to make it say something to the effect that “God always has a way out for you” (which can only appeal to those who can’t deal with life’s realities in the first place). The real lesson of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22 is that the believer needs to be willing to destroy his own values (and anyone else’s) *on command* and *without question*. And that’s precisely what the story models: it portrays Abraham not once wincing at what he was instructed to do when he was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac.
Nide: “Your second response is evasive. Does god have a purpose for his law? I will answer for you.”
Of course, one can imagine that a being that is merely imaginary has any purpose one imagines for the actions he ascribes to it. That’s hardly impressive, Nide.
Nide: “The law of God was not Giving to make Men Good. The law came to expose the sin of Men.”
As I pointed out, it accomplishes nothing of any practical value for man. One can sit there and command others to do or not to do whatever he pleases until the cows come home. It doesn’t make a hill of difference. Even from the bible’s perspective that’s the case. Why else would it threaten “sinners” with punishment? The commandment itself is utterly inert.
Besides, if one has not committed murder, then clearly the commandment not to murder does not have the relevance that you have ascribed to it. It simply doesn’t apply.
Regards,
Dawson
Sir, you keep making the claim that I am imagining things. But haven't been able the prove it. So, when will you?
You said: "If you aren’t going to accept anything I say, then why do you keep coming back to me?"
To give an answer. Many of what you have tried to present is, actually, quite ignorant and false. However, it is your blog you can always ask me to leave.
Sir, you said: "Actually, you’re not in agreement with me, because I said that murder is *absolutely* inappropriate. You cannot affirm any moral pronouncement absolutely, since all morality on your view ultimately boils down to what the ruling consciousness wishes. It can wish whatever, and whatever it wishes, is the moral, because it wishes it (cf. the Euthyphro dilemma that Ydemoc raised earlier).
So, In other words the inappropriateness of murder actually goes by location. Is this your position?
Sir, you mentioned the story of abraham and Isaac. Once again this only shows your utter ignorance.
How about if God had an extremely good Purpose for what he did. Which he does.
Genesis 22 "15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”
This actually was pointing to the future.
It has nothing to do with men. The application that you gave is actually a really bad one.
As abraham rightly said" Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together."
Which he actually did. The lord Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 11 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.
God raised Jesus from the dead. The lord of Glory.
You said: "Besides, if one has not committed murder, then clearly the commandment not to murder does not have the relevance that you have ascribed to it. It simply doesn’t apply.
You are wrong again. It has alot of application.
Matthew 21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[n]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before [p]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be [q]guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [t]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [u]offering. 25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last [v]cent.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Enjoy,
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;"
r_c321, I find it odd that Jesus would be so specific in pointing out sins. Anger, adultery, calling people fools... it seems - I don't know what the word for it is - but it seems to give away the game a little bit.
I mean, if I was sitting there listening to that back then, I might ask "Yeah, but why are you telling us this? We were all made depraved and it was you who made us that way. So *everything* we do is evil, according to you. But now you're listing certain things. Why not just come out and say, 'You are all sinners, everything you do is bad. Nothing you do is good. Every thought you have is bad. No thought you have is good?'"
But perhaps someone did ask this back then, and Jesus said, "Uh, can I get back to you on that?"
Who knows? One can only imagine.
Ydemoc
Nide or r_c321 mentioned Gal 3:19-25, the Schoolmaster argument.
An Argument Against Christianity From the Contradiction Between 1Cor. 11:23-25 and Lev. 7:22-27 by Robert Bumbalough
The skeptic can use an interesting pair of contradictions in the Bible to falsify Christianity and the archeological record to falsify Judaism. A contradiction entailed between the alleged revelations of Christianity and Judaism is the formers glorification and dependence upon symbolic consumption of blood offered in sacrifice. 1 Cor. 11:23-25 relates " 23: For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, 24: and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25: In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of me. "
Judaism's alleged revelation in Lev 7:22-27 states "22: And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, .... 26: And no blood shall ye eat in any of your dwellings, whether it be of fowl or of cattle. 27: Whatever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples."
Jesus is identified as Jehovah in the following passages. John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 10:30-31, John 10:38-39, John 14:9, John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Col 1:16, Col 2:9, 1 Tim 3:16, Titus 2;13, Phil 2:6, Heb 1:8, Rev 1;17, and Rev 22:13.
The Bible assures the reader that Jehovah cannot lie as expounded in the following passages. Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, 2 Sam 7:28, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18.
The Bible also relates that the Law of Moses is a perpetual Covenant that cannot be rescinded ever. Gen 17:19, Ex 12:14, 17, 24, Lev 23:14,21,31, Deut 4:8-9, 7:9, 11:26-28, 1 Chron 16:15, Psalm 119:151-2, 160, Mal 4:4, Matt 5:18-19, Luke 16:17.
If Jehovah exists, then either Judaism is a true revelation or it isn't. If Moses got a true and correct revelation, then that revelation is incompatible with and contrary to Christianity, and Jesus and Paul were wrong, self-deluded, and Jesus cannot be equal to Jehovah. On the other hand if Moses was a deceiver or a myth, then Judaism is a fictional religious fairy tale, and Jesus and Paul were incorrect, self-deluded, and Jesus cannot be Jehovah because Christianity presupposes Judaism to be a true revelation. Either way Christianity is false, and Jesus is not Jehovah.
If Paul had the truth and his Law of Moses as schoolmaster argument (Gal. 3:24) was true, then either Jehovah lied to Moses or the Bible's assertion that Jesus equals Jehovah is false. If Jehovah is a liar, then it is not most worthy of worship. If Jehovah is not most worthy of worship, then it cannot be God and the Christian God must be something else. If the Bible's assertion that Jesus equals Jehovah is false, then Christianity's dependence upon a truthful historical Judaism is also a lie and the use of Old Testament proof texts to support Christian claims is fallacious and there could not then be Christ as Jewish Messiah.
Both Moses and Paul cannot be correct, but both can be wrong. If Moses, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan, the Davidic-Solomon-Reboaham unified empire are myths cooked up by the eighth century BCE Judean Jehovah cultists in response to the prosperity of the Omri-Ahab dynasty of the northern Israel kingdom, then the Mosaic Law and the Torah are human fabrications. And Jesus, the Jews, and Paul were wrong and self-deluded. Christianity presupposes and requires Judaism to be a true revelation from Jehovah, but if the Bible minimalists are correct, as they appear to be, then Judaism is just another mythological religious fairytale, and the New Testament's equivocation of Jesus and Jehovah is a lie. This would be fatal for Judaism and Christianity.
I composed the argument from contradiction between I Cor 11 and Leviticus 7 several years ago for a message thread at Debunking Christianity. It might be useful here to demonstrate to Nide/r_c321 that Christianity is a false religion even if it were possible for a being of pure consciousness to exist in some timeless eternity. I am posting this note as the prior post exceeded the character limit.
Further along those lines I refer the reader to George Bethune English's book The Grounds of Christianity Examined that is available for free download on the Project Gutenberg web site.
Robert,
I wonder why I even decide to interact with you.
So, you are saying that Jesus and the diciples actually drank blood?
Jesus was that ignorant of the old testament that he would actually go ahead and drink blood?
Can you please find the passage that states this?
Well, dont even bother because you wond find it.
Nide wrote: “Sir, you keep making the claim that I am imagining things. But haven't been able the prove it. So, when will you?”
But I have proved it, Nide. And you’ve been unable to mount a defense against my proof. But if you’re still unclear on things, I’ve published a new post just for you, right here:
Nide’s Snide
I asked: "If you aren’t going to accept anything I say, then why do you keep coming back to me?"
Nide responded: “To give an answer.”
Then when are you going to give an answer? You’ve posted many times, and on occasion you’ve *responded* to things. But you’ve not *answered* any challenge posed to you. If your purpose is to give an *answer*, when are you going to get around to it?
Nide: “Many of what you have tried to present is, actually, quite ignorant and false.”
You think it’s “ignorant and false” when one recognizes that something he is imagining is in fact imaginary? How so?
Nide: “However, it is your blog you can always ask me to leave.”
This would be like asking a comedian to get off the stage when his audience is rolling in laughter. Why would I do that?
I wrote: "Actually, you’re not in agreement with me, because I said that murder is *absolutely* inappropriate. You cannot affirm any moral pronouncement absolutely, since all morality on your view ultimately boils down to what the ruling consciousness wishes. It can wish whatever, and whatever it wishes, is the moral, because it wishes it (cf. the Euthyphro dilemma that Ydemoc raised earlier).”
Nide: “So, In other words the inappropriateness of murder actually goes by location. Is this your position?”
No, that is not the position I have affirmed. You need to read again, and this time more carefully. Here’s a hint: Pay attention to what I *actually* write. I said nothing about “location.”
Nide: “Sir, you mentioned the story of abraham and Isaac. Once again this only shows your utter ignorance.”
So Abraham was not willing to obey what he was commanded to do? Where does the story depict Abraham disobeying what he was commanded to do??????
Nide: “How about if God had an extremely good Purpose for what he did.”
That would ultimately be irrelevant, for any “purpose” that the believer ascribes to an imaginary being that he worships could be said to be “an extremely good Purpose.” This is simply an attempt to rationalize the unjustifiable. It’s like asking: “How about if Adolf Hitler had an extremely good Purpose for what he did?” Hitler’s followers could easily pretend that their fuhrer’s “purpose” was good and noble, just as Christians want to rationalize that the “purpose” their god had in commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son was “extremely good.” It’s undeniable that at least one of the points which believers are to take to heart from stories like Genesis 22 is that the believer must be willing to do whatever is commanded of him, just as Abraham is nowhere depicted as even questioning the command to prepare his son for sacrifice. The purpose of the story’s outcome is in fact to distract believer’s from the story’s fundamental purpose. And Nide, you’ve fallen for it.
Regards,
Dawson
r_c321
r> "I wonder why I even decide to interact with you."
If you don't want to play, that's ok by me. Its no sweat off my ass. I think you're a delusional nutter deluxe, and the only reason I participate in this conversation is to have a laugh or two.
r> "So, you are saying that Jesus and the diciples actually drank blood?"
No. That's not my point at all. The contradiction between Paul's invention of the Eucharistic ritual described at 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and that it was subsequently plagiarized by the gospel scribblers stands in direct violation of the prohibitions to the drinking of blood in the Levitical code. If it had been the case that fantasy JC was the same being from which the blood prohibitions were sourced, then it makes no sense to suggest that Paul did anything other than directly borrow the Eucharist from Hellenistic mystery religions like those of Mithra, Osiris, Dionysus, where such symbolism was the norm.
r> "Jesus was that ignorant of the old testament that he would actually go ahead and drink blood?"
Most likely there wasn't any historical person who can be identified as the fictional literary character, Jesus of Nazareth. If there was a historical person at the root of the gospel legends and myths, then he was either like the Hellenistic Cynic sage speculated upon by Burton L. Mack, John Dominic Crossan, and John S. Kloppenborg, or possibly a Nazorean Zealot Messianic Jewish nationalist fighter/prophet as per Robert Eisenman and Hyam Maccoby. Paul was the real inventor of what became Christianity, and thus it is devoid of merit beyond that of a social club.
r> "Can you please find the passage that states this? Well, dont even bother because you wond find it."
Non sequitur as you failed to understand the obvious contradiction. FYI, the gospels are fictional fairy tales made up to support religious agendas of the leaders of the faith communities where the stories originated. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark and Q. John can be shown to most probably be redactional story telling upon the synoptics. Mark's narrative structure was arbitrarily fabricated to provide a story context for a set of free standing Jesus pericopes and sayings selected to give voice to what his ecclesia members were saying Jesus ought to have said or did say. Fuck, man, only the dimmest of dim wits thinks or feels the gospel accounts are actually historical.
r_c321: Now about your failure to live up to your obligation under Mark 16:17-18 which reads in the NASB as
17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
The important word, parakoloutheō, here is in v.17 meaning will always be present is in the NASB translated as will accompany.
In 1 Peter 3:15 is read (again from the NASB) 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
The word of interest here is apologia meaning to make a defense and translated as such. Therefore I invoke 1 Peter 3:15 and earnestly petition you to make a defense of your faith by public demonstration of drinking deadly cyanide laced kool-aid or juice as the delusional nutters at Jonestown Guyana did at the command of Pastor/Minister James Warren Jones. This is reasonable as the Gospel of Mark records the alleged words of the risen resurrected Christ that these signs, including the drinking of deadly poison, shall always be present amongst those who have believed. Do you believe this? Is so, prove it. If not, then why not?
Robert,
Your question is quite ignorant like always.
New testament scholars for an extremely long time have known that those verses are not original. I am pretty sure you also know this. So, quit asking.
r_c321 "New testament scholars for an extremely long time have known that those verses are not original."
Since you exhibit a knowledge of higher criticism, you admit you know Mark 16:9-20 and probably also that all of John 21 are forgeries.
This means you understand the gospel story is not inerrant and that the spurious endings of Mark and John about the post resurrection appearances are corruptions of the central message of the gospel's promise of salvation via the resurrection. You then know its all just a fairy tale. No wonder you're fucking chicken shit to take your phony god at his word! You're not a believer. You're just playing church. This constitutes blasphemy under Mark 3:29 for to ascribe the behavior of lying to your god is to equate it with Satan, the father of lies as per John 8:44. (Dude, you can go to hell for this shit;) But your not being convicted by the Holy Ghost for this grievous sin. Why is that? For sure, it's because the Holy Ghost is not anymore real than Jehovah or Jesus. If the Holy Ghost were actually informing your central emotional core with knowledge of non-sinful vs sinful behavior, then you would feel oh so very guilty for trashing the central idea of your alleged god's providential message of salvation, However, you feel no such conviction. This is strong evidence your religion is bull shit.
Have a nice day.
Robert,
Paul says to put away filthy and silly talk.
So, why are you doing it?
r_c321/Nide: Due to other commitments, I will not be able to further participate in this conversation.
In summary then, Dawson, the other blog users and posters, and myself have proven the Abrahamic god and indeed all other forms of god delusion to not be possible. Dawson has shown you are imagining your god experiences. The facts that I have pointed out to you that you are a heretic and blasphemer relative to nominal Christianity, (i.e., blasphemy by virtue of assuming your god’s alleged action in allowing forgeries to be included in the biblical canon has resulted in a situation wherein you are free to disregard known interpolations and forgeries in what is widely regarded as having inspired status and thus implicating your god as a liar, and heresy by virtue of believing ‘the good’ to be an independent and objective standard of value that is not created by your god), while not experiencing “conviction” via the alleged holy ghost for your egregious sins is strong evidence you are imagining your god as a fantasy in your mind. This is buttressed by further facts that there are many thousands of Christian sects or denominations having widely variant doctrines and in theological opposition to each other and yet claiming to be inspired and guided by the alleged holy ghost. If it were the case that the abrahamic god existed and wanted its worshippers to have a unitary set of beliefs and had provided for direct magical esp communication with those people, then there would not be many thousands of christian sects and denominations with widely variant doctrines. This too is strong evidence you and all other christians are imagining a fantasy god for their religious practice.
The books and articles that I have linked to provide a strong case for both weak and strong atheism, and you have not answered any of those or anyone else’s arguments in this message thread. Therefore you lose this discussion by default as well as by virtue of the superior arguments of your intellectual betters.
I leave you with additional links to free downloadable books that if you read and honestly deliberate upon will give you ample rational reason to deconvert.
Is It God’s Word and Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless
@r_c321 Dawson, Robert has expressed his desire for me to convert to atheism.
He even asked me to say a prayer.
Can you give me some links where I Could learn more about your religion.
Thanks
In freshman English 101, students are taught that proper diction requires a writer to identify how they are using a word if the writer's usage of the word in question is not clear from its document context.
The word "pray" has these meanings:
1. to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc., to (God or an object of worship).
2. to offer (a prayer).
3. to bring, put, etc., by praying: to pray a soul into heaven.
4. to make earnest petition to (a person).
5. to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness.
The context of my statement wherein I urged rc321 to pray to his own self clearly implied meaning #4.
I speculate rc321 does not know this because he may not have actually had attended freshman English 101.
Thank Bethrick for an awesome argument. I have point it in detail why I think it is this case fails: Ethrick: A Proof that the Christian God Does Not Exist? but here I would simply like to answer:
"When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?"
This is how:
I am imagining that I am imagining that I imagined. Is my my imagining that I am imagining that I imagined, imaginary. No. I can imagine something without it necessarily being imaginary.
Let me know your thoughts.
Yours,
Prayson Daniel
Hello Prayson,
Thank you for your comment and for taking up this argument.
In my blog, I ask the following question: "When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?"
You state that “this is how” what I am imagining when I imagine your god is not imaginary:
<< [a] I am imagining that I am imagining that I imagined. Is my my [sic] imagining that I am imagining that I imagined, imaginary. No. [b] I can imagine something without it necessarily being imaginary. >>
There are two portions to this answer which I have designated [a] and [b] respectively. It is unclear how either portion of your response addresses my question. In fact, neither portion addresses what I am imagining when I imagine your god. Observe:
In response to [a], I would point out that I have not argued that the act of imagining something is itself imaginary. If I did, I would be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. Rest assured, my position does not affirm stolen concepts. The *action* of imagining is very real, just as other actions of your consciousness are real. The point is that *what* you imagine is imaginary. This can be an completely fictitious object (like a magic dragon in your backyard), it can be the action of an actual object you know of (like yourself or someone else you know), it can be a relationship between a combination of these (e.g., you and a family member, or you and a magic dragon), etc. For instance, while lying in your bed you can imagine yourself flying in the air over London, like Peter Pan. You are real, but the action you are imagining yourself doing is imaginary. Indeed, the you that you imagine in this imagination is also imaginary – you are in your bed, not flying over London. You can imagine yourself in the arms of a famous model. The actual human being who is this model is not in your imagination; rather, a mental assemblage is what is in your imagination, and you have selected features from reality to assemble this image in a way that significantly resembles the real model. Same with the you that you imagine in her arms. All of this, what you have imagined, is imaginary. The action of imagining, if you do in fact imagine, is actual. My question is careful not to confuse the action of imagining with the object being imagined – the *what* that is being imagined. That is what theists need to address.
As for [b], I note that you do not provide an example of something (the *what* of imagination) that you can imagine that is not necessarily imaginary. Perhaps I can help here. I have a wife and I see her and hold her every day. But when she is away at work and I’m at my work, I imagine her. What I am imagining is in fact imaginary, even though the image I am assembling in my imagination has been assembled from features that I have selected specifically to resemble her as much of what I imagine in this case is drawn from memory. I can change this at will. In the imagination I construct of her, I can give her different hair color, I can make her taller or shorter, fatter or thinner, talkative or taciturn, with a different nose, different eyes, etc., in a sundress or faded blue jeans, sitting in a chair or running a marathon, etc. Again, *what* I am imagining is in fact imaginary; it does not really exist. When I imagine my wife, a real person, you can open up my head, you will not find my wife in there. She does not exist in my imagination; she actually exists, and what I imagine, even though it is intended to resemble her, is still entirely imaginary.
So again, when I imagine the Christian god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?
Indeed, when we get to other objects of worship, such as Islam’s Allah, the Lahu tribe’s Geusha, etc., how are these things *not* imaginary, and therefore unreal????
That is the question which my argument raises for those who seek to tackle it. I read your blog entry, but even there, you fail to address it adequately. I will explain why in an upcoming post on my blog.
Regards,
Dawson
Hej Dawson.
Thank you for taking time to respond. I think I will wait to read your upcoming post before I address the point you rose here.
Again thank you and I should not go without stating that I salute your passion, beautiful mind that is set to show the truthfulness of atheism. You rock Dawson.
Yours,
Prayson
Hello Prayson,
You can find my new blog entry here:
Prayson Daniel vs. the Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism
Please feel free to ask any questions you may have in the comments of that blog entry. I will try to get to them as soon as my busy schedule allows.
Regards,
Dawson
Haven't read the comments or the entire post, but got to the square circles part.
Out side of the context in which the argument is being made, square circles do exist. A shape with 250 sides can be considered a circle, just like a shape with 4 sides can be said to be a circle. Since a circle is defined as something like every point on the circle is equidistant from its center, it can be said that no circle even exists because you can never have a perfect circle, and if the shape doesn't fit the criteria of the definition, it follows that it must be something else.
Hello Bryan,
Thank you for your comment.
I have posted a reply in the form of a new blog entry here:
Klouda-ing the Issue
If you have any follow-up thoughts, you are welcome to post any new comments there.
Regards,
Dawson
Premise 1: that which is imaginary is not real
Premise 2: that which is imaginary cannot be seen
Premise 3: that which cannot be seen does not exist
Premise 4: your ancestors cannot be seen
Premise 5: your ancestors do not exist there for are not real.
That was your logic in your premises
Hello Michalyn,
Thank you for visiting my blog and posting your comment.
You listed five premises and state that they represent the logic of the argument that I have presented in my blog. But in fact, it appears that you did not examine the argument that I actually give very closely. Here it is again:
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Now it’s not clear which (if any) premise in my above argument you object to. I do acknowledge that “that which is imaginary is not real.” I’m guessing that you would agree with this, but in fact several Christians have disputed this. (Why would they do that?)
I also agree “that which is imaginary cannot be seen.” But this is not a premise of the argument that I do in fact present. Moreover, I do not say that something is imaginary simply because one does not see it. I do not see Mt. Fuji, but I do not deny its existence, nor do I say it’s imaginary.
So when you attribute the premise “that which cannot be seen does not exist” to me, you are grossly mischaracterizing my position. I nowhere affirm this. Nor is it necessary to or at all implicit in the argument which I do present.
Thus the final two premises which you attribute to me (“your ancestors cannot be seen” and “your ancestors do not exist there for are not real” [sic]) do not represent any portion of the logic of my argument.
It seems that, if my argument had some point of failing, one would not need to mischaracterize it in order to expose its defects.
May I ask, what motivated you to do this?
Regards,
Dawson
Hello again Dawson,
Sorry I'm so late to the party, but I came across this post after looking at some of your most recent posts.
In any case, you say in your post:
"Christian apologists who want to object to my argument’s fourth premise, which states that the Christian god is imaginary in nature, are welcome to address the points of evidence that I have cited in support of this premise. Ultimately, there is a single question that any atheist who encounters a pushy apologist need pose. And that question is:
When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?
Since we have no alternative to imagining the Christian god when believers tell us about it, this question is most appropriate, especially since we’re expected to believe that it is real. If theists think we have an alternative to imagining their god, what is that alternative, and how is it different from imagination?"
Perhaps by this point you've recognized what I'm about to say, and have changed your mind. And so if that's the case, I apologize in advance.
But if someone tells me about Quantum Mechanics, I can merely imagine it. I certainly don't understand it all, and so I have no alternative but to imagine it. But it seems that you want to say that God is "imaginary" on the basis that you use your mind to simply contemplate God (this is an odd use of the term). If this contemplation doesn't mean Quantum Mechanics doesn't exist, then I don't see how it means that God doesn't exist. To demonstrate:
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
Premise 3: If Quantum Mechanics is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Premise 4: Quantum Mechanics is imaginary.
Conclusion: Therefore, Quantum Mechanics is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Is this an accurate understanding of your position (or else the position you held when this
was written)?
Thanks,
McFormtist
Hello McFormtist,
You asked: “But if someone tells me about Quantum Mechanics, I can merely imagine it.”
I doubt that this is the case, at least for some specialists working in the field of physics. While my understanding of QM is quite limited, it has been explained to me that we can derive conclusions about QM through mathematics ultimately based on observable facts. Since mathematics and imagination are not the same thing, I would suppose that physicists who study QM would challenge your statement, and for good reason. That being said, I suspect a lot of imagination is involved on the part of some physicists who apply various interpretations to findings in QM, in which case they may very well be departing from reality.
Also, per my understanding, QM begins with things that we perceive – e.g., physical objects which we can see and touch, which do not imagine and which do not conform to our imagination – and proceeds on the basis of mathematical analyses of those objects, essentially breaking them down into subdivisions which we cannot perceive as distinct entities. Imagination may in fact be involved in this process, but since it is guided by mathematics and observable facts (such as by means of equipment that can bring the imperceptible into the range of our perceptual faculties), it does not necessarily depart from reality; it might, but it might not.
The key here is the principle of objectivity which, I expect, would require tremendous precision on the part of a physicist to maintain. Since so many thinkers are already confused as to what objectivity entails, failure to maintain objectivity in deriving conclusions in areas where research takes us to reaches that are so remote from direct perceptual observation is probably more commonplace than we’d like to admit. Hence we find in physics today a lot of bizarre notions that are easily commandeered into mystical defenses (of which Rick Warden has so graciously provided several examples).
So I don’t think QM as a general category is at all on the same par with god-belief. In the case of god-belief, we are not deriving conclusions by mathematical processes based on facts which we can observe and guided by a consistent application of the principle of objectivity. Rather, god-belief requires us to abandon the principle of objectivity outright, jump straight into the deep end of our imagination and pretend that what we imagine is real. This is why there has been such a wide variety of religious views throughout the history of mankind – all of them in one way or another assuming the primacy of consciousness – beginning with the consciousness of the believer himself. The two things they all have in common are (a) the assumption of the primacy of consciousness, and (b) reliance on imagination as the ultimate “means” of “knowing” what such mystical views affirm as “truth.”
I hope that helps clear up your confusion.
Regards,
Dawson
Ah, my Apologies. I didn't see your until I clicked "Post a comment" and then "Newest," due to the limit of displayed comments Thank you for replying.
Although you don't understand QM as thoroughly as perhaps you would like, you still assent to it's validity by granting certain other things (based on observable facts, etc.). And it's because of those things, you say, that QM is not analogous to God's existence. No analogy is perfect.
Since existence takes primacy over consciousness metaphysically (and I do understand the distinction), would you say that there must be existence before there can be consciousness, logically (or, chronologically)? I imagine you would say "yes," but I wonder, then, what you would say gave rise to consciousness qua consciousness, if anything. Unless you can identify something, I don't see how even you can hold a distinction between the two, except at the behest of a philosophy that was handed to you. (Are we so different?)
"Rather, god-belief requires us to abandon the principle of objectivity outright, jump straight into the deep end of our imagination and pretend that what we imagine is real."
That's a rather heavy-handed parody of what Christians believe, but it's also incorrect. It implies our imagination determines what God is. Now, make no mistake. Christians don't believe God is something like any other thing in nature. We hold to a basic subject/object distinction for all things that are *created.* But God is not nature. But we don't jettison the distinction when it comes to God. We simply recognize that they're bound up in one in God.
God is who he is because God is what he is. God knows God as he is. And there was never a time when he either didn't exist or wasn't conscious of himself. And yet neither one "gave rise" or "determined" the other.
That last couple sentences are something that I think you would grant that Christians believe, whether or not you consider them (even objectively) valid. And that's of no concern to me. You might find a contradiction in God's existence because there must be something that is conscious of God apart from God's own existence. But that's if and only if God is not completely self-existent and self contained.
Thanks,
Matthias
Hi Matthias,
I’m glad you wrote back.
Regarding QM, you wrote: “And it's because of those things, you say, that QM is not analogous to God's existence. No analogy is perfect.”
My understanding of QM is of course quite limited, as I realize the literature on the topic is quite vast, and so are the varieties of interpretations on the raw data. Often when folks speak of QM, they seem to imply that it is a monolithic set of positions embraced by all who do research in this field, and this is not what I understand actually to be the case.
But what I do understand is that physics, like any other science, is the systematic application of reason to some specialized area of study. It begins with things that we do perceive (actual concretes) and then seeks to analyze them or find certain common characteristics among them in an effort to derive some sort of mathematical representation of what’s happening at a level that is not within the range of our unaided perception. Am I at least generally correct in this regard?
If I am at least generally correct on this, then there are fundamental disanalogies between theism and physics (QM, if you will), not only in epistemological methodology (beginning with looking outward at the world), but also in terms of the content (i.e., physical things that we discover in the world around us by means of reason).
By contrast, god-belief does not take physical objects that we discover around us by means of perception and then apply reason in an effort to analyze them in order to find a god. At no point in the Christian bible, for instance, do I find such a model for “knowing God” portrayed or even hinted at. On the contrary, what occurs in god-belief is perception of the world around us and then imagination of some conscious force “back of” everything we perceive (as Cornelius Van Til would familiarly put it). That is not what I understand the science of physics to be doing.
Also, from what I understand, the photons, quarks, particles, wave forms, meta-energy puffs or what have you that physicists claim to discover at the QM level are not said by those same scientists to be conscious entities. But the Christian god is supposed to be a conscious being, capable not only of knowing and “seeing” (though it’s not supposed to have eyeballs and optical nerves, etc.), but also of essentially wishing objects into existence (e.g., creating the universe, heaven, angels, souls, etc.) and altering their natures at will (e.g., water into wine a la John ch. 2).
[continued…]
If a physicist analyzes a grain of sand to discover its particle structure at the QM level, he’s beginning with something concrete, something real, something finite, something observable, something non-imaginary. Naturally we should in principle be able to take any concrete and analyze it beyond the perceptual level. This would be a conceptual exercise. The things we perceive around us are all made up of various elements, and we can examine the things around us to discover their elemental make-up. So the raw material that physics investigates is at its very beginning very much real – i.e., expressly not imaginary. It seems to me that the deeper we descend beyond the perceptual level, the more delicate the investigating becomes, and thus the more careful we need to be as we proceed toward the quantum level. Any little mistake earlier in the process could reverberate into huge mistakes later. And I would think that at least some of these mistakes could be discovered by means of experimentation. A prediction of the outcome of a procedure based on conclusions could prove that some of the attendant premises were in error.
But is this at all possible with a god-belief? What experimentation can we perform to test predictions of outcomes based on theistic premises? What predictions could we make in the first place when what we’re talking about has a mind of its own and can simply wish things into being or alter their nature at will?
Suppose I’m a physicist contemplating some area of research. At the QM level, I might imagine what the structures suggested by my conclusions would look like if I were shrunken down to the QM level to perceive them firsthand with the sense modalities that I possess (I’m reminded of the old Disneyland ride called “Inner Space” sponsored by Monsanto which, years ago, simulated the process of shrinking attraction-goers down to microscopic size and observing “events” from that vantage). But recognizing the primacy of existence, I would not mistake what I imagine for what is actual. I certainly would not replace what I discover with what I imagine. But then again, I realize that not all folks out there, many scientists included, are not in the habit of guiding their thought processes by a self-conscious adherence to the primacy of existence. Quite frankly, I strongly suspect that this is at the root of the problem with many interpretations of QM, but I do not have access to the data to confirm this.
Anyway, I hope I haven’t bored you so far with my ranting on QM!
[continued…]
You wrote: “Since existence takes primacy over consciousness metaphysically (and I do understand the distinction), would you say that there must be existence before there can be consciousness, logically (or, chronologically)?”
There are three fundamental ways in which consciousness rests on pre-existing physical structures. (And I say this in light of my understanding of the three levels of consciousness – namely the sensory level, the perceptual level, and the conceptual level – hierarchically aligned in this order.) One, there is the complex of organs involved in sensation and the nervous system integrating those organs into whole system which makes sensation possible in the first place. Here I’m talking about eyeballs, eardrums, olfactory nerves, epidermis layers, taste buds, etc., as well as the nerve cells, ganglia, brain, etc., that are involved in sensory receptivity and transmission of sensory stimulation to a central “processor” if you will that is able to register and thereby “experience” sensory stimulation as an input from outside the system. So in short, consciousness needs the biological system that makes it possible.
Second, consciousness requires an object. Since consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms (consciousness of what?), there needs to be some existent which stimulates the biological system that registers stimulation. Thus we have the subject-object relationship which informs and necessitates in philosophy the issue of metaphysical primacy.
Third, there must be a purpose that possessing consciousness serves. And clearly in the case of biological organisms which possess consciousness, that purpose is survival. Whether it is a mosquito, a trout, a cat or a human being, without consciousness, such organisms would not be able to locate and acquire those values they need in order to live.
All these points underscore the fundamental principle that there must be something that exists before consciousness can exist. And in fact, as I relate this to my own life and experiences, everything I observe and experience confirms this without exception. I was born at a certain point in time. I have discovered that, prior to my birth, things existed – they existed before I existed; they existed before I was conscious of them. I observe this same relationship in people who are quite younger than I am. I know many folks who are teenagers now; I’m some 30 years older than they are. I got my first drivers license, had my first job, graduated high school and even college, had numerous apartments, etc., etc., etc., long before they were born. The realities of my life did not depend on their conscious activity; they couldn’t have, since they didn’t even exist yet. And now as a parent of a young girl growing quicker than I can say Jack Robinson, I’m some 41 years older than she is. I existed for four decades before she was even born, let alone conscious of her own being.
[continued…]
So to answer your question, I look outward at reality (as opposed to looking inward at the contents of my desires, wishing, likes and preferences, imagination, dreams, emotions, etc.) and find only evidence for the primacy of existence.
You wrote: “I imagine you would say ‘yes’, but I wonder, then, what you would say gave rise to consciousness qua consciousness, if anything.”
Well, I think ultimately this is a scientific question, since it would require specialized knowledge in a specific field of research to ascertain and understand the data relevant to answering you question. But, having said that, I would say that generally, I strongly suspect that the general answer to your question would be: biological causality ultimately “gave rise to consciousness.” How’s that?
You wrote: “Unless you can identify something, I don't see how even you can hold a distinction between the two, except at the behest of a philosophy that was handed to you.”
I’m not sure why you would think this. Even if I cannot isolate the specific course of causality which “gave rise to consciousness,” I am able to use the consciousness which I possess and observe numerous facts around me which do not require such specialized knowledge (as I laid out above). Much of what I know about the world was not “handed” to me in some hermetically sealed envelope whose contents I swallowed whole and called it “knowledge.” That is not the approach that my worldview even advocates. (Frankly, that’s what a worldview styling its affirmations as ‘divine revelation’ does.) By contrast, rational philosophy has helped me isolate the fundamental principles I’ve needed all my life to clarify the hierarchy informing the sum my knowledge and discover new facts which I can integrate into that sum without contradiction. The benefit this has given my life is frankly beyond measure. I wouldn’t give it up for anything (not even someone who is said to have “died for” me).
You asked: “(Are we so different?)”
Presuming you are as human as I am, yes and perhaps no. Yes in the sense that, as biological organisms of the same species, we share a tremendous number of things in common. But in terms of the specifics which distinguish us, I’d say we are inevitably going to differ in many ways. We each have our own data sets, and we each have the choices and actions which we have made in response to those data sets respectively along the way, throughout the course of our lives. I would not expect any of this to be very similar. Perhaps some of it is, but much of it is not.
[continued…]
I wrote: "Rather, god-belief requires us to abandon the principle of objectivity outright, jump straight into the deep end of our imagination and pretend that what we imagine is real."
You responded: “That's a rather heavy-handed parody of what Christians believe, but it's also incorrect.”
I don’t think it’s incorrect at all. Genuine knowledge of reality requires us to look outward at the world, to gather data, identify it, integrate and analyze it by means of reason. By contrast, to contemplate “God” (or “Allah,” or “Zeus,” or “Avalokitesvara,” or “Ahura Mazda,” or “Brahmin,” or “Geusha,” or “Blarko,” etc.), we need to look inward at the contents of our wishing, imagination, emotions, preferences, even dreams in some cases. How do I discover “God” by looking outward? I cannot. Christians themselves tell me that their god is invisible and beyond the reach of my senses. (Many have happily told me, “Just because you can’t perceive God, doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.”) But I can imagine the Christian god, and in fact, when I was a Christian, I did just this. Indeed, given the multitude of prompts in the Old and New Testaments, I imagined a lot of things in my quest to obey the god I could only imagine!
You wrote: “It implies our imagination determines what God is.”
I think ultimately that’s what does determine “what God is,” just as that’s what determines what Brahmin or Avalokitesvara or Geusha is.
You wrote: “Now, make no mistake. Christians don't believe God is something like any other thing in nature. We hold to a basic subject/object distinction for all things that are *created.* But God is not nature. But we don't jettison the distinction when it comes to God. We simply recognize that they're bound up in one in God.”
It is interesting how often Christians want to correct me on things, as if their worldview were some kind of novelty that is completely unfamiliar to people like myself who grew up in the west, where there are Christian churches peppering every neighborhood, where folks are preaching on sidewalks, where believers host bake sales, where evangelists approach us on the streets and even knock on the doors of our homes, etc. I was born and raised in the United States, and frankly I don’t know how someone could do the same and not have at least a rudimentary grasp of what Christianity is all about. No, Matthias, Christianity is not some novel thing that just came out and we’re all unfamiliar with. I know what Christianity teaches. I was a Christian myself. I taught Sunday school. I chaired Men’s Fellowship meetings. I wrote songs for the church choir (they weren’t very good, but they sang them with the enthusiasm of a toothpaste commercial nonetheless).
I agree that Christians do not “jettison the distinction” between consciousness and its objects, since a conscious person cannot actually do this in full. Rather, the problem is that mystical worldviews like Christianity blur the distinction such that it is never entirely clear to the believer what is real and what is actually imaginary. When the believer prays, he naturally wants to imagine a supernatural consciousness hearing his prayer. As he invests himself emotionally in this hope, the distinction between reality and imagination begins to disappear within his psychological experience. Later he’ll say, “I prayed, and God heard my prayer, and He’s looking out for me, for I have been his obedient servant.” One could imagine the very same thing with Allah, Avalokitesvara, Brahmin, Geusha, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, Osiris, Thor, Doot-Eckes, Blarko, etc. What’s common to each of these is what is colors every believer’s psychological experience, namely the prominent role that his imagination plays in steering his “spiritual life” towards the goal of fulfilling his confessional investment in the mystical teachings he seeks to incorporate into his life.
[continued…]
You wrote: “God is who he is because God is what he is. God knows God as he is. And there was never a time when he either didn't exist or wasn't conscious of himself. And yet neither one ‘gave rise’ or ‘determined’ the other.”
Just as you imagine all this, the Blarkist imagines: “Blarko is who he is because Blarko is what he is. Blarko knows Blarko as he is. And there was never a time when he either didn’t exist or wasn’t conscious of himself…” etc.
If the Christian god is merely imaginary, one could still say the very things you say about it as you do here.
You wrote: “That last couple sentences are something that I think you would grant that Christians believe, whether or not you consider them (even objectively) valid.”
Of course, since the primacy of existence is inescapably true, we should naturally expect mystical worldviews to treat their affirmations as though they were proper expressions of the primacy of existence. In essence, when religionists affirm their religious beliefs (which assume the primacy of consciousness) as true, they are borrowing the primacy of existence from Objectivism and affirming their religious beliefs as if they were true independently of conscious activity. And yet, their worldviews essentially affirm that conscious activity made everything in the first place. So their actual outlook on the world is comprised of a mixed metaphysics – an attempt to make use of the primacy of existence as the metaphysical backdrop of their primacy of consciousness proclamations – all the while ignoring the fundamental contradiction this creates at the very foundation of their outlook on reality. It may be “of no concern” to you, but if you ask me, it should be.
Anyway, that’s a lot in response to your comment. I hope it helps enlarge some of the topics at issue here.
Regards,
Dawson
Thanks once again for the thorough reply. I also appreciate the tone, and I hope I have reciprocated an equivalent tone in my own responses.
I did not mean to compare theism to QM except to say that they're both things that a person can possibly not fully comprehend. But it seems that by "imagine" you mean more than just "to contemplate." I was mistaken to think that. What I think now, however, is that your reasoning from empiricist (which I gather from your emphasis on "physical") foundations precludes any explanation of God which doesn't include what is considered empirically "imaginary." I could have simply disagreed to begin with and all would be well (not that all isn't well.). It turns out that what you're saying is that God-belief is not compatible with empiricist or objectivist philosophy. I'm only too happy to agree. God-belief violates primacy of existence simply because it wasn't crafted to be fitted into that paradigm to begin with.
I can understand how, when looking out and not seeing God, you would find only evidence for the primacy of existence. God himself is not found in nature. Nor, really, does he technically exist in the Bible. But since our perception functions in an analogous manner to God's we are able to understand details about things that we cannot immediately see. Namely, God. You and I can understand a certain type of tree by simply reading about it, without ever having to see, feel, etc. the tree itself. And yes, God is disanalogous to a tree.
My imagination didn't write the Bible, for instance. If you're alleging that what the bible says was conceived by someone exercising their imagination, that would require some rigorous proof itself. I can conceive of some explanation as to why money is missing from my wallet (a hole, strong wind, etc), but if a thief actually reached in his hand and took cash, well, primacy of existence, right?
There's no doubt a psychological aspect to belief in God. It makes me feel good to believe in God. It makes others feel bad to believe in God. Neither have any effect on his actual existence, and it would be closing the mind too soon to conclude anything about God's existence from that.
Christians' (and Blarkians' ad infinitum) description of their deity may very well include what I have said re: divine aseity and simplicity. This doesn't count as a mark against God's existence. It simply means you have more work to do. But if you aren't in a position to adequately assess God's existence (as informed by Christianity), then much less so for all gods that claim (or whose adherents claim) to be like that.
Only on Christianity can one maintain an intelligible, thorough, and consistent worldview, and reject all counterfeit gods. All throughout the Tanakh it is affirmed that there is only one God. Unless you affirm God's existence, you cannot ultimately rule out any of them.
So that ends my own rant. Thanks again for the exchange.
Matthias
Hi Matthias,
I've been feasting all day on your comment. Unfortunately what I've written by way of reply to your thoughtful comments has gotten extremely long. The good thing is that my reply will make a great addition to my blog, so thank you for contributing.
I don't know when I will complete my response to you, but once I do, I will post it on my blog and provide a link to it here, to let you know it's up.
Until then, thanks again for your comments.
Regards,
Dawson
Hi Matthias,
I have finally had a chance to work more on my interaction with your comments above, and have posted my reply to them in a new blog entry. You can find it here:
A Reply to Matthias on Imagination and Its Role in Theism
I know it's painfully long, and I apologize. What can I say? I'm a very high-context communicator, and I try my best to explain my position as thoroughly as possible, given time and other constraints of course.
Anyway, take your time with it. I ask that you give it a thorough read as your time allows.
Also, I saw your other comments as well on the other blog. I will try to get around to them when I can. All fascinating stuff!
One last thing, just so you know... 24 hours after I have posted a new entry on my blog, comment moderation will automatically go into effect. I reluctantly switched to this setting about a year ago after two clobberheads were massively abusing their commenting privileges. So please bear with me... I'll get around to "approving" comments as my time and access allows.
Regards,
Dawson
Hi Dawson,
I have a question.
How is this argument valid. It seems to me that saying that God is imaginary is the same thing as saying that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't that be circular?
Enjoy your work very much.
Robert Kidd
Post a Comment