The “consensus” view among atheists seems to be that atheism is reasonable and that religious beliefs are not.
So why are atheists angry at God?
We can become incensed by objects and creatures both animate and inanimate. We can even, in a limited sense, be bothered by the fanciful characters in books and dreams. But creatures like unicorns that don’t exist ”that we truly believe not to exist” tend not to raise our ire. We certainly don’t blame the one-horned creatures for our problems.
The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
I’m trying to remember the last time I got angry at something which did not exist. It’s been a while since I last played World of Warcraft, but that might be a candidate.
But atheists angry at God? That’s absurd. Assertions that there are empirical studies to that effect? Simply ludicrous. By definition, atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods. It is simply a matter of logical impossibility that atheists should be angry at God.
I did not claim that I comprehended the universe fully. I claimed that the universe was fully comprehensible.
Do you see the difference?
No Christianity is not a conclusion it is a presupposition. If you treat Christianity as a conclusion you have already conceded the argument.
peace
You can be pretty sure that you don’t know, but how do you know that nobody else knows (particularly when you know yourself to be a non-knower)?
And I reject this sort of proof-texting as irresponsible. That passage has nothing to do with the comprehensibility of the universe.
peace
Sure I do. But given that your “evidence” for your belief is “Jesus” I don’t feel strongly compelled to address your actual argument, such as it is.
Since you can’t even bring yourself to agree that human animals have evolved biologically from non-human animal ancestors, then it’s likely there is NO “stuff we can agree on”.
You are probably an expert at fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling anyone else here.
I don’t even need an argument! 🙂
I see your point and I agree that the passage is not specifically about the comprehensibility of the universe.
It is however about revelation that is why I posted it
And it does specifically say the the Spirit searches everything there is not a comer of the the universe that beyond His gaze.
I would be happy if we were at a Bible study to go into how the Logo is precisely the Wisdom of God personified.
quote:
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew.
(Pro 3:19-20)
end quote:
peace
Actually, if you were paying attention to what fifth was saying, you’d know he’s arguing that it is the Logos that pre-existed. But thanks for at least pointing OMagain in the right direction.
Even Keiths acknowledges that he does not know this for certain.
Do you agree It’s possible that common decent is an illusion? Or are you certain it’s a fact?
peace
Which parts of Christianity are the necessary preconditions for knowledge?
I’m fairly sure the psalm Boney M covered is optional….so what about the rest of it?
Let’s see if this such an area:
Do you accept that there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago?
Your answer may be, “Yes, I accept that there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago.”
Or it may be, “No, I don’t accept that there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago.”
Or it may be something else.
Remember,
We agree on that.
🙂
From you they demand certainty, from themselves, not so much. They are 100% certain you are wrong though. But that’s only a degree of certainty. That’s not an absolute certainty.
Again I am not making an argument so there is not need to address it. I’m simply explaining the presuppositions that I feel are necessary for knowelege.
If you have alternative presuppositions that allow you to be confident that you know things I would love to see them
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
It’s quite clear to me by now that your basic position is driven by a deep contradiction: you want to say that you know the universe is fully comprehensible, but at the same time, that it is a presupposition that the universe is fully comprehensible. It cannot be both.
Let’s call the proposition “the universe is fully comprehensible” C (for comprehensible). Can one know that C?
Suppose that knowledge is justified true belief. Then one knows that C if and only if C is justified and true.
A proposition P is justified if and only if there is some evidence for P (if P is an empirical proposition), or some argument that has P has a conclusion (whether an inductive or deductive argument), or something like that. There can be many different kinds of reasons, but P is justified if and only if is the result or conclusion of some process of reasoning.
Now: is C justified? If C is justified, then C must be the result of a process of reasoning. But if C is the result of a process of reasoning, then it cannot be a presupposition. This is because a presupposition is what is taken for granted or assumed at the outset — as noted above, presuppositions are (somehow) like axioms, not like theorems. But axioms are of course not justified, and a fortiori not known.
Either one can claim to know that C, or one can claim to presuppose that C, but it’s a contradiction to assert both.
The Gospel.
If there is a part of Christianity that is not related to the Gospel then it is an optional disputable matter. We are commanded not pass judgement on these sorts of things.
It’s these sorts of things that Christians argue about.
peace
The trouble is that you have no explanation. It’s just an out-there woo claim, so universal that it has no meaning. If God can reveal things to us, then God can reveal things to us. Yes, the circle is complete, but it’s your own little enclosure.
Of course it’s not worth discussion, because unquestionable presuppositions (the difference between yours and ours, at least ideally) don’t really tell us anything other than that you’re not going to question them. Except that it won’t stay out of the discussion because you bring it up as if it should mean something, when it has no meaning to the discourse beyond your supposed trump card.
Presuppose anything, but unless you can give meaning to it beyond your sectarian beliefs, it’s not worth mentioning.
Glen Davidson
No you don’t get it. A proposition can be both a prerequisite for knowelege and a revealed truth. But you won’t understand this unless you get the incarnation
Christ is both necessary and contingent. Fully God and Fully man at the same time. This is not a contradiction it is the central truth of the universe.
Until you see how this can be you will miss the point.
peace
Exactly. And logic runs something like this:
Presuppositional Apologist: Did you mention logic? Here is something new for you: every time you mention Laws of Logic, morality and science you already presuppose God’s existence, because knowledge, logic, morality and science cannot exist without presupposing God.
Recalcitrant Sinner: That argument’s also a pile of bunk! Defining the reference frame for Logic/morality/knowledge/science, even if it presupposes god, does not necessarily imply its existence.
Presuppositional Apologist: See, you just gave me more proof that God exists because you are using God-created logic, God-created science and God-created morality!
More from rationalwiki:
Sye ten Bruggencate, among others, has said that the purpose of presuppositionalism is not so much to change minds as to shut mouths. Indeed, the argument garners little respect among even conservative Christians. Even William Lane Craig, he of the “self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit,” has accused the argument of begging the question (which is really not what one would call a glowing recommendation…)
How is this epistemic chain not subject to infinite regress?
Foundationalists argue that there are beliefs that are properly basic. As such they are justified but not based on some other proposition.
Again the only reason this has come up at all is folks from your side constantly demand that Christians defend this or that as if Christianity will be refuted simply because you deem this or that event to be unlikely assuming your worldview.
Talk about circular reasoning
1) Start by assuming Christianity is false
2) Find data that presumably makes Christianity unlikely given (1)
3) Demand Christians refute (2) or concede (1)
That circle is so tight it makes my neck hurt from the whiplash.
What I would like to see is an account of how knowelege is possible given (1) before we move on to (2). Then finally perhaps we can take a look at (3).
peace
Oh, I see what you meant! Now that I understand the objection, I really like it!
I suppose I’d say that my evidence here is that since no one has yet ventured into deep space, no one can know how our conceptual abilities might be affected by how deep space travel affects our bodies and senses.
I’ll happily admit that my speculations on this point is inspired by two outstanding science-fiction novels by Peter Watts, Blindsight and Echopraxia, both of which explore how deep space travel affects consciousness and how weird human consciousness looks from a truly cosmic point of view.
But I think that the very fact that Watts’ speculations are intelligible means that we cannot know whether or not our conceptual abilities are only reliable in our infinitesimally tiny corner of the universe. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We simply don’t know.
To return to my main argument: if our conceptual abilities are only reliable in our infinitesimally tiny corner of the universe, and discursive abilities (rationality, sapience, etc.) did not evolve anywhere else in the universe, and there is no God — if all three conditions obtain — then the universe would not be fully comprehensible. And since we cannot know whether any of these conditions obtain, we similarly cannot know whether or not the universe is fully comprehensible.
Now, the assumption that the universe is fully comprehensible might still be a perfectly good methodological constraint on successful inquiry, but that’s a lot less than what FMM wants it to be — because he claims that he knows that the universe is fully comprehensible, and I’m pointing out that no one can know that, because it has indeterminate truth-value.
Do YOU actually think common descent is an illusion?
It’s a simple question, fifthmonarchyman.
Pick the one which matches your belief:
I think common descent is an illusion.
I think common descent is not an illusion.
Until you specifically answer one or the other, there is absolutely NO “stuff we can agree on”.
Rebel minds are not changed by arguments Rebel minds are changed by regeneration
That is a God thing.
If your Christianity rests on a human argument you will eventually abandon it when an atheist who is smarter than you comes up with a counterargument
quote:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,………………. but of God.
(Joh 1:12-13)
end quote:
that is something you can have confidence in
peace
No, undoing your own unsupportable presupposition is not our first task. It’s a worthless claim that we need give no heed, other than its impedence to getting to the real issues.
Glen Davidson
geeze
I think I have said it at least 6 times now. In 6 different ways
I have no problem with common decent it seems to be a viable conclusion given the data we have but I don’t think the differences between humans and other creatures can be entirely explained by material forces.
and as usual I am open to new information if it presents itself
peace
fifth,
We don’t start by assuming that Christianity is false. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.
You, meanwhile, reason as follows:
Nonsense as usual.
What we’re really doing is:
1) Notice data (eg in physics/geology/history/our human reality) that appears to make christianity unlikely given contradictions between stated christian belief and the material data.
2) Ask that christians demonstrate how they reconcile the apparent contradictions.
3) If christians not forthcoming with 2) then ask why not.
The amount of time you spend trying to twist your gospel into pretzels to avoid admitting even the tiniest factual flaw, no wonder you have whiplash. Your whiplash has nothing to do with us and everything to do with your own incoherence,
fifth, to Erik:
The atheist doesn’t necessarily have to be smarter, since the evidence is so clearly on his or her side.
However, congratulations on demonstrating that you don’t mean what you say when you claim to be open to new evidence.
Yes you do.
If you assume that “humanity” does not know that the universe is comprehensible you are assuming that Christianity is false because it is a core tenant of Christianity that at least one human fully comprehends the universe
peace
Guys
We can agree that my worldview appears to be foolish to you just as yours appears to be foolish to me. That is exactly what it means to have incompatible world views.
quote:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(1Co 1:18-25)
end quote:
peace
Wow, a founder of your religion says that it is in fact true and that opposing viewpoints are made foolish by it.
Can you imagine how impressive that is to us?
Glen Davidson
Congratulations for demonstrating that new evidence must come through human argument.
That is quite a presupposition
peace
FMM:
Let us recap, to the tune of Ravel’s Bolero:
RB to FFM:
FFM:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
RB:
RB:
RB:
FMM:
RB:
RB:
FMM (To another participant):
RB:
RB:
Yes I can however I’m not trying to impress you.
Can you imagine how impressive your arguments are to someone like me?
peace
Yes, being reasonable isn’t really your thing.
Glen Davidson
Reciprocating Bill,
Thank you for the compilation I’ll just link to it the next time the question comes up
you might want to add this one as well http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/angry-at-god-2/comment-page-10/#comment-79526
I’m sure there are other times I’ve answered the question you could dig up if you look for them.
peace
Well, from where I stand, it’s pointless to discuss alleged flaws with people who cannot bring themselves to admit that items they claimed to be flaws are not in fact flaws at all and that they had no basis even for believing that they were flaws in the first place.
Then on top of that I take into account that what I see are a laundry list of alleged flaws without any actual argument. What, exactly, would it prove if Luke got the date of the census wrong? What, exactly, would it prove if Matthew in fact took an event from his scriptures and used it as a “prophecy” in a way that modern skeptics would reject? What is the conclusion?
Therefore, Christianity is false?
fifth,
No, I ‘ve been careful to exclude Jesus from my claims since his status is under dispute:
fifth:
keiths:
FMM:
It’s a compilation your evasions, Fifth.
Here is the question you evaded, as anyone reading the above can see:
Do you accept that there existed a species ancestral both to Homo sapiens and Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago?
ETA:
I didn’t see this, as your response wasn’t directed to me:
Why was that so hard?
again, You are assuming that Christianity is false because it is a core tenant of Christianity that Christ reveals himself to his own.
The Logos is the comprehensibility of the universe. If you know the Logos you know that the universe is comprehensible.
If nothing else Christians claim to know the Logos
peace
BTW:
I take your response to mean the following:
“I have no problem with the assertion that chimpanzees and human beings shared common ancestor on the order of five to ten million years ago. it seems to be a viable conclusion given the data we have but I don’t think the differences between humans and other creatures can be entirely explained by material forces.”
Correct me if I am wrong.
You forgot to mention that your conclusion is not absolutely certain.
You can’t be absolutely certain of the truth of your premises, and you can’t be absolutely certain that your argument is either sound or valid.
But that doesn’t appear to stand in the way at all of you acting as if you are in fact absolutely certain.
fifth, to Erik:
keiths:
fifth:
You’re making stuff up, fifth. Do you think Jesus would approve? I have neither claimed nor presupposed such a thing.
Geeze indeed. 🙂
Since even you, a looney-tunes-noah’s-flood-was-real-but-not-global christian, agree that YOU think that common descent is NOT an illusion, then why on god’s green earth did you challenge me earlier to “agree It’s possible that common decent is an illusion?”
Reading in context, you’re contradicting yourself.
It is possible that common descent is an illusion IF and only IF every thing we think we know about reality is also an illusion. IF your god is a trickster god who created the universe with the lying appearance of great age, then it’s possible common descent is an illusion.
Lord knows any sane person would prefer to believe in a god that created our universe 13+ billion years ago in such a way that cosmological evolution eventually gave rise to Sol and our planet, and in such a way that natural biological evolution in an unbroken chain of ancestors and descendants eventually resulted in a proto-human whose physical body looked just like ours, rather than believe in a lying trickster god who planted false evidence which makes it look as if all that happened.
And yet, god needed to interfere to insert the special whatever-you-think-it-was into the one generation between Adam’s biological father and Adam. (Well, not exactly Adam, since that wasn’t actually his name and he didn’t actually live in the Garden of Eden with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.) That’s some trick!
I can’t. How impressive is that to all of you?
Oh so you don’t read my comments unless they are specifically in response to you. that explains a lot. I wondered why you kept repeating the same question I had already answered over and over.
If you look I think you will find that I have repeatedly addressed your question phrasing my response in lots of different ways trying to hit on the exact response you were looking for.
I have not changed my answer at all from the first time responded to you question
peace
Or perhaps I should have written that your conclusion is absolutely not certain.
Or certainly not absolute.
FMM:
Please comment on this:
I take your response to mean the following:
“I have no problem with the assertion that chimpanzees and human beings shared common ancestor on the order of five to ten million years ago. it seems to be a viable conclusion given the data we have but I don’t think the differences between humans and other creatures can be entirely explained by material forces.”
Correct me if I am wrong.
Keiths makes it a point of emphases that he holds it as a real possibility that everything he knows is an illusion. He goes so far as say his lack of certainty is a presupposition. Do you agree with keiths?
peace