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.
Notice how we are again discussing Biblical exegesis. Why the fascination?
What I would say is that it is defiantly revealed truth but that you almost certainly misunderstand it,
peace
I wonder what the bible has to say about that?
quote:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(Eph 2:13-16)
end quote:
peace
You refuse to justify any of your claims with material not from the bible. So we might as well talk about that.
Please give me your interpretation then.
Or I can save you the trouble. Submit to the bible, both men and women equally, don’t pray loudly etc etc.
Yet it’s funny how sometimes what the bible says is literally true and sometimes it needs to be interpreted.
The absence of “metaphysical implications” is itself entailed by the inability to specify any properties that the designer might have. If design theory cannot tell us anything at all about the properties of the designer(s), and can only tell us that there is at least one designer, then there aren’t any further implications at all. According to the theory of intelligent design, all we know is that at least some of the complex systems we observe in the natural world are due to the intentional activity of at least one intelligent being. The theory cannot tell us anything more than that, which is why it is epistemologically sterile, even if it were testable (which it isn’t, at least not yet).
And that applies to Hindu’s does it?
Would you then say that everything in the bible is revealed truth?
first lets see if we are on the same page
Do you agree that is the Christian God exists he could reveal some things to you in such a way so as you could know them for certain?
Do you also agree that he could reveal some things with out revealing everything?
If so do you think it’s possible for a person to know something with out knowing exactly how he came to know it?
Peace
I would say all truth is revealed truth
peace
Heh.
The priest returned from his meditations with a message from god! From now on we must consider the words of the priest to be the word of god revealed to his servant! This has been revealed as truth to the priest directly from god, and to disobey this order is to disobey GOD!
As such, the priest would like all the fluffy cushions, the best corner office (the one with a view) and all will bow as he passes. Any anyone who questions his right to these things WILL BE PUT TO DEATH.
fifthmonarchyman,
What you might want to say here, I think, is that the existence of God is the condition for the very possibility of knowledge. It’s not a question, as far as you’re concerned, of how you or I happen to know particular things, but rather how anyone knows anything at all.
And how do you tell the truth from everything else?
For example, is it a camel or a camel hair rope that cannot get through the eye of a needle? From everything you’ve said you should be able to tell me definitively one way or the other.
I’m not making any claims I’m simply sharing my presuppositions. In response to direct questions.
Care to share yours?
So far it’s been crickets
peace
If it is “we” that arbit the validity of each other’s statements, then when I consider KN & Neil’s position to be absurd nonsense, then by their own stated principle by which statements are arbited, my evaluation is as correct as anyone else’s.
I note that KN hasn’t answered my question: if I reject his norms and his views, so what? The answer is: nothing. There is no so what. I might as well be rejecting a statement by KN that strawberry is the “correct” flavor of ice cream, because that’s all his argument for “norms” as basis for proper living and debating amounts to – his, or his group’s, personal preference. Nothing more. There’s no necessary downside to entirely personalized and self-serving concepts of “logic” or “morality”.
One wonders why they bother to argue for what amounts to nothing more than an absurd life based entirely upon personal preference. There is no point in arguing for such a state of affairs. They cannot even actually argue or live in such a manner,. If they did, they certainly would have no reason to argue as if their views were true in the non-absurdist sense – yet here they are, arguing as if someone else’s views is wrong and theirs true in a sense unavailable to the worldview they argue for. Bizarre.
I think I already answered this
There are spesific instructions on this. It’s basically the correspondence theory of truth on steroids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth
The main difference would be that since the Logos is truth the correspondence theory also come into play
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
In my worldview there is no difference between the two
How do you know things in your worldview?
peace
As I mentioned, I think it might be possible to make a good argument from partial comprehensibility to full comprehensibility, and I’m also responsible for mentioning another galaxy. But I don’t see that induction requires full comprehensibility if “full” isn’t just a geographical term.
I’ve asked before what this means and for what entities the universe is supposed to have this property. Do you think the universe fully comprehensible to lowly human beings (with only 5 senses)? What about to ants? Is it only fully comprehensible to God? If so you aren’t getting from comprehensibility to God, but going in the other direction.
Turning to geography, you’re probably right that induction wouldn’t make sense if it were restricted geographically–unless we knew of both the restriction and the areas of limitation. But consider: it would also make sense to us if we didn’t know about either. That’s a temporal point too. That is, suppose induction has worked great so far, but will only provide good evidence for another 1000 years. You might say that nothing is comprehensible then, But in truth, we don’t even know why induction works now.
“God” you say. “God makes induction work,” But the world does what it does and we come to find out. If it were different we might (or might not) figure out (to some limited extent–just like now) how it works. If excluded middle obtained only on alternate Thursdays in September, you would again say “It’s God! God made it this way!” That’s a problem, I think. No matter how the world is, was, or will be, you find God in the result. That should make you wonder if you’re actually saying anything meaningful, not produce satisfaction.
I’m guessing your answer to this is something like, “The fact that you can “find out” anything at all is evidence of rationality. And on that, we agree. But I don’t think you can get God from that. It could have been produced in something like the manner KN has discussed, or could simply be an unexplained feature of the universe.
The universe is understandable, at least to some extent, by human beings. I believe that pretty much everyone here will grant you that. Now, go ahead and make your argument for the necessary existence of God given that premise.
Yet you live your life in exactly the same way, you’ve demonstrated no superior way of living your life, you’ve achieved less then the majority of the people here (you’ve not contributed to the sum total of human knowledge) and if what you say was really true then your life would be a shining example of what you are talking about.
But it’s not. So it seems there is no actual benefit to having your world-view, it does not make you a person others aspire to be like, you’ve achieve nothing notable to make others wonder if your way of thinking is a better way.
Now you are getting close! Everyone is wrong and there are as many world-views as there are people!
No, what’s bizzare is your claim to have a better way and your complete inability to demonstrate that it’s better.
And is it a camel or a camel hair rope? This should be easy!
walto,
Hey walto.
Your comment deserves more time than I have now. I’ll try to get to it this evening after work
That is unless I’m to busy answering questions about the meaning of scriptural passages.
peace
right on cue
peace
What theists claim is that God is the author of the universe, reality, etc. So logically there is no thing God has created that He doesn’t understand, regardless of our precision assaults on His intellect.
so lifting a rock so big even He cannot lift it is pointless banter. Its like the lightweight Bruce Lee chopping through the air going kiung, kiung, at Steven Segal, who then, exasperated with the fly swatting antics goes BOOM…then says: “What was that you were saying….Bruce??!!”
I mean come on, how does a created entity tell an uncreated entity what it can and cannot know?
Oh, you can challenge the uncreated status of God alright…but that is a losing game. In fact, you(pl) have already conceded the point by claiming the uncreatednessness of the universe. You (pl) do understand the concept, it appears. Just not this concept with a bearded face, right?? Yes, yes, occam’s razor. We know. But the shortcut is dull and uninteresting. What’s your hurry, anyway?!
Look, its understandable that you(pl) dont really like the possibility of the universe being alive. Sure, a dead universe is a deaf universe….and for you (pl), a feel good outcome.
If only it were true.
Like evolution. If only evolution was all about purposelessness, goallessness, pointlessness. That would also be the preferable, feel good outcome.
If only it were true.
Evolution, like the universe, needs, requires, desires intelligence.
It can’t do shit without it.
So…. if you(pl) insist on a faceless, nameless, God like evolution, (true, bearded power brokers are a bit dull and neanderthaltishtick ) one could conceivably understand your (pl) peevishness on that score.
But just don’t con yourself that nothing created some thing out of no thing. Did I get that right?
Ha, us created critters always have a hard time wrapping our heads around uncreatednessnes.
But then if we did understand it, we would all be God.
Hey, wait a minute. Now there’s an intriguing thought………………
William J. Murray,
One wonders why you bother to argue too. If it’s all settled and all, and all you have to do is assume an independent arbiter and the world makes sense for you. But argue you do, repetitious ice cream trope and all.
For certain?.
I don’t see how it could. Suppose god reveals something to you, how could you be certain that it was true? I’m going to need some convincing here.
But even if I agreed that the christian god exists and even if I agreed that the christian god could, in principle, reveal truthes to you. I still don’t see how YOU could know that it was, in fact, god revealing things to you. And certainly I can’t fathom how you could be certain about it.
All you’re telling me so far is that you believe something. You believe god has that capacity, to reveal things to you so that you can know them. Right, that is your belief, I’m asking how you know that is actually what happens. You believe god reveals them to you, right. How do you know that? Try to stay away from the manifestly vicious circular reasoning you are using here.
Sure, but I still don’t see how it is you could be certain that they were true. Suppose god tells you they are true, how do you know god is telling the truth and not testing you?
No. In such a situation I would use the word ‘belief’ or ‘conviction’.
The thing I think you’re missing here is that isn’t any important difference here between knowing that snow is white and knowing that it’s true that snow is white. How do we know that snow is white? Using your definition, we know it if we believe it, have sufficient justification for our belief and it is true that snow IS white.
But…how do we know if it’s TRUE that snow is white?
Same thing. There isn’t any additional justification for the TRUTH of the proposition. But no additional justification is needed or is even possible, precisely because (ignoring language issues) snow is white iff “snow is white” is true.
Knowledge doesn’t require certainty in the sense that knowing something MAKES that thing true. I admit, however, that such knowledge is not impossible (think of the cogito) and that any God worthy of ITs salt would have it with respect to every true proposition.
You and mung have been challenging atheists to explain how they can know anything. But you want to require a sort of certainty that is not part of your own definition of knowledge. Yes, for us to know something, it must be true as well as justified and believed. When it is, we know it.
KN says these things as if logic were an absolute commodity binding on all humans as he understands it, as if science is an absolute commodity not entirely subject to the norms of any particular group; he makes this case as if others are necessarily bound to the same conditions that form and judge the validity of rational and scientific understanding and knowledge, even while in this same thread he denies such “sewn into existence” conditions, which could be assumed to be binding on everyone whether they agree to them or not, actually exist – or, at least, denies that is how humans actually operate. Yet, here he is, operating exactly that very way.
KN, then, wants to have it both ways, apparently. He here refers to some kind of universal epistemological framework of logical inference implying that ID and IDists are bound to it and so must satisfy it’s requirements (which he outlines) “or else there are no further metaphysical implications”, yet when I argue that KN and everyone else here is bound to the same kind of universal framework for validating statements and arguments, he cries foul and waves the flag of metaphysical oppression and injustice.
If, according to IDists, design has been scientifically proven and that it necessarily implies the Christian God, then by KN and Neil’s own principles, they have no footing other than personal opinion or groupthink by which to assert that perspective “incorrect”‘. And, it would only be “incorrect” in the sense that it didn’t match up to their own views because there is no fundamental arbiter beyond personal or group views by which to make a case for it being “incorrect”.
IOW, under KN & Neil’s perspective, KN & Neil, et al, and IDists, are all cutting an marking up their own personal and/or group rulers. If IDists measure their work and find that ID has been scientifically demonstrated and implies a Christian god, all KN & Neil et al can do is use their own rulers, measure that work, and say: no, it doesn’t measure up – even while KN insists that every group has a right to their own rulers, and Neil claims there are no fundamental or absolute rulers!!!
This is madness.
Allan Miller said:
This makes no sense at all. My perspective provides reasons to argue – it even compels the attempt to correct the metaphysical misunderstandings of others for their benefit and mine for the purpose of promoting good.
If I considered good, truth, logic, and life ultimately meaningless, absurd, relative and subjective, why the hell would I bother trying to manipulate the minds of others and attempt to make them see things my way? What purpose would that serve other than possibly giving me some kind of superficial sense that I had “won” an entirely meaningless effort where the only arbiter of such a contest is my own personal view?
Madness.
The coherence theory of truth doesn’t work, whether or not it is on steroids.
Maybe it can seem to you that it works when you are on steroids.
So he did not follow his own advice, to love one’s enemies.
In addition, when you know something, you do NOT have to know that you know it. AFAIK, anyway.
Demanding that knowing also involves knowing that you know would lead to an infinite regress.
Maybe God can handle those infinities, but not us humans (at least not the ones who are not the Word incarnate.)
Is that like the way that the apostles were certain that the second coming would happen within their lifetimes?
Right. Someone could know that-p without even having the concepts of knowldge or belief.
Might makes right eh?
I guess the logical conclusion is that William acts as if there is no God because he doesn’t use reason soundly. But if he actually admitted that, it would contradict his acting as if there is no God, so he can’t admit it, and must maintain the stance that the lack of sound logic is sound logic and that it points to there being a God.
We, on the other hand, follow sound logic by noting that logic does not entail God, unless it is put unsoundly into the premises, thereby acting as if there is a God. We are so pious that we stick by sound logic to conclude that there is no good reason to believe in God, thereby proving that there must be a God, at least to Murray’s mind.
Which is fine, actually. We’ll be theists by using logical entailment properly, and William can be an atheist by using logical entailment improperly.
We couldn’t have simply evolved to think logically, of course, because Murray can think illogically–turning the rules of logic into God’s Rules.
Glen Davidson
Rope or camel fifth?
GlenDavidson said:
From the perspective of KN & Neil, what is “sound logic” other than what any particular group or individual thinks it to be? Of what value is the assertion that your logic is “sound”, when in your own view, “logic” is simply whatever any group or individual thinks it is? All you are saying here, then, is your logic is not the same as our logic, so your logic is wrong .” – but all “wrong” can mean in a norm-founded system is “doesn’t conform to our version”.
Madness.
Once you’ve convinced somebody that they can only have a debate because god exists, and they have accepted that, what do you say then?
I suppose what I’m asking is what does “promoting good” actually mean? Would you not be better served by simply “promoting good” rather then attempting to convince people to your way of thinking?
What I’m asking is that once you’ve successfully convinced someone of the correctness of your world-view, what happens then? What does that person then do? What do you do? Move on to the next person? Or what?
Again, this is an attempt to point out that your world-view is essentially hollow – once someone is convinced by you, you have nothing else to offer? Or do you?
From someone who thinks Uri Geller might actually be really bending spoons with his mind and that faith healers can cure cancer, that’s actually a compliment.
Restate that in formal logic. Demonstrate your lack of understanding to yourself, for once.
Nobody is forcing you to participate at TSZ.
You confuse what works across individuals and groups with what is merely preferred–or not–by individuals or by groups. There is a difference.
Your thinking that logic is simply whatever any group or individual thinks it is to whomever, happens to be wrong and relativistic. Math and science work across cultures, both because of human similarities and due to regularities in this world.
No, we’re talking about how thinking works (well, or not so well) in humans.
So stick to your madness.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson said:
The absurdity of this is off the charts. What does it mean to have evolved to think logically? What does “logic” mean in that context? However evolution happens to have generated in our brain the association of certain sequences of thoughts to a concept and claim of “logic”, or “sound logic”?
Then, I (as an aggregation of all evolutionary events leading up to the present in my lineage and environment), have, via physical laws, systems and chance events, evolved to “think logically” in precisely the manner I am applying it and explaining it in this thread. Your principle that our logical thinking was produced by evolution contradicts your assertion that I am thinking illogically. I cannot be, if what evolution produces as logical thought is what defines logical thought.
Unless “logical thought” is a standard that stands outside of what evolution produces as thought, and unless we have some means to access at use it, all we can be applying is our own solipsistic “logic” produce by our individual evolutionary lineages, giving you no room to say anything that amounts to anything more than “Since you disagree with me, you’re wrong.”
Madness.
That sounds like a scientific question to me, and as you have yourself said that you are not a scientist and are unequipped to evaluate scientific claims on what basis are you making this series of scientific claims? And furthermore, how would you evaluate any response given, as you have noted you are not equipped to evaluate such?
That might makes sense at a species to species level, but individual humans are more similar then they are different.
Again, your lack of scientific training is showing you up. You claim no scientific expertise yet go on to make scientific claims.
The evolution of meme’s is something different to physical evolution. Ideas can evolve much faster. You are trapped at the lower level of thinking.
That is not actually my “perspective” (or point of view), and I doubt that it is KN’s either.
What counts as sound logic cannot be separated from how we conceptualize and organize our interactions with reality. The norms that we are talking about are really the norms that we use to govern those interactions and our discussions of those interactions.
GlenDavidson said:
Who defines “what works”? Who defines “preferences”? Who defines logic? Has the logic of religious belief and faith not worked for billions of people for thousands of years?
Says the guy who claims logic is whatever patterns of thought evolution produces, then claims that some of those evolution-produced views of logic are “wrong”. Compared to what? Does logic exist outside of what evolution-produced brains think it is?
Unfortunately, unless the following is assumed:
If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If logic is not assumed to be a causally independent, authoritative arbiter of true statements, there’s no reason to apply it. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.
… that statement of yours means nothing and can simply be dismissed/ignored by those who disagree. Unless logic is sewn into the fabric of existence, and unless science is assumed to address some sort of metaphysical reality, your statement is simply an idiosyncratic pattern in agreement to evolutionary lines similar to your own.
Science – like proper living and discourse – only succeeds and proceeds due to the ignored theistic assumptions that undergird everything about it.
What worldly things have you achieved with all this wisdom, apart from some posts on a obscure message board?
William, is “logic” created by humans or discovered?
Can you give an example of what “logic” means to you? Are you able to restate these arguments in formal logic?
No? Then I submit you don’t know what you are talking about.
So far 932 posts on a topic I proposed a while back as a joke.
Neil Rickert said
Then if I conceptualize and organize my interactions with reality differently than you (which I think is obvious that I do), my sound logic and your sound logic can be two entirely different things. This gives you no room to criticize my logic as “unsound”, because “sound logic” is inseparable from my conceptualization and interaction with reality.
If you actually believed what you say, you’d realize that all you can be doing when criticizing the logic or views of another boils down to “You’re not like me, so you’re wrong.”
Madness.
Better then another of Mung’s bible posts!
Just do something with your wonderful logic already. Fix all the wars, feed all the starving people. As right now all it seems to me is that you want a round of applause for your brilliance!