This 2015 paper ought to provoke provoke an interesting discussion:
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
Why not ‘It’s Islam or absurdity’?
What can the Christian God do that Allah cannot?
For starters there is the incarnation. It’s probably impossible for a deity to communicate with humanity with out the sort of translation that incarnation provides.
There are lots of other reasons as well.
I’m pressed for time now if you are interested we can discuss more later
peace
That’s the kind of shoveling a bunch of stuff together I was talking about. I hope you recognize–even if dimly–that your position requires you to do that sort of inappropriate messing around.
Kind of by revelation. But….uh…also kind of by definition. Whatever. I can know, and the only way is if God did it.
You can’t make sound arguments that way. Just sloppy messes that show NOTHING.
faded_Glory:
fifth:
faded_Glory,
I’ve had this conversation with fifth before, so perhaps I can save you some time. His position is an incoherent mess, as you might expect.
1. Fifth believes that a timeless, immaterial being cannot interact across the “infinite ontological gap” with the material world, which exists within time.
2. Jesus incarnated so that God could bridge that gap.
3. Never mind that incarnation isn’t an exclusively Christian idea. Fifth would rather not talk about that.
4. Also, please don’t ask how God managed to incarnate across the “infinite ontological gap” if he couldn’t interact across it. That’s just how it is, OK?
5. Also, never mind that this requires Jesus to have incarnated before the creation, a view which most Christians would consider heretical. Fifth doesn’t like the h-word.
6. Also, don’t mention that by fifth’s reasoning, when the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, it couldn’t do so directly. The Holy Spirit is a timeless, immaterial entity, after all. The physical Jesus had to impregnate Mary to produce the fetus Jesus. It was actually a threesome between Jesus, Jesus’s mother, and the Holy Spirit. Now that’s a kinky heresy!
Fifth ties himself in knots over this stuff. It’s kind of amusing, for a while.
So who was Moses talking to at Mt. Sinai?
And what about all those other times God managed to cross the infinite ontological gap?
And how dumb do you have to be to create an infinite ontological gap in the first place?
It’s okay, I hadn’t really expected you to say ‘actually, you have a point there” 😉
keiths:
Woodbine:
Jesus, of course.
Jesus.
My favorite is when God shows Moses his “back parts”:
I asked fifth about that:
fifth confirmed it:
You can’t make this stuff up. But fifth can.
And of course, fifth can’t explain why seeing Jesus’s face would have killed Moses, when the disciples were completely unscathed by the sight.
Every time you hear an apologist say it’s impossible for (a supposedly omnipotent) God to do X you can pretty much guarantee you’ve hit upon a blindingly obvious plot-hole in the story.
I think that “while” passed some time ago, when we were looking at his game.
I suppose this is why some people prefer presuppositionalism – it deflects attention away from the embarrassing shit like Jesus’s arse.
Why is it inappropriate to elaborate on what is meant by revelation in a particular context? Among other things In this case what is revealed is that words have meanings.
If God did not reveal the fixity and primacy of definition we would not know it and we would forever be like Patrick trying to support the claim that water is wet.
Again for probably the millionth time I’m not making arguments.
I’m simply sharing my presuppositions. If you want to challenge them you need to show that they are inconsistent or incapable of doing what I need them to do ( ie justify knowledge).
peace
um Christ
quote:
By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of—— Christ———- greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.
(Heb 11:24-26)
end quote
The same way, Did you ever hear of Christophanies? Also you need to remember that God is a Trinity and any time the Father is present the Son is also there.
Think about the difficulty we would have in revealing ourselves to a nonhuman creature. It’s very difficult to explain to the nuances of our experience to someone from another culture just imagine how tough it would be to communicate comprehensively and inerrantly to a dolphin or an AI.
Now imagine the gap that would be between a finite localized temporal physical creature and an infinite omnipotent atemporal nonphyisical diety
peace
Really?
quote:
and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
(Rev 1:13-17)
and
And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. ———they fell on their faces and were terrified.
(Mat 17:2-6)
and
His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.
(Mat 28:3-4)
end quote:
Perhaps the main reason that looking at Jesus between his death and crucifixion was not so traumatic is simply that he wanted it that way
quote:
in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Php 2:5a-8)
It’s just that “emptying” that makes revelation possible.
peace
It’s important to understand the God that I presuppose is not some generic run of the mill deity He is the Tripersonal Christian God of Scripture.
nothing else will do when it comes to revelation AFAIK
peace
I would say that Allah is not omnipotent. Muslim’s will after all admit that Allah can’t accomplish an incarnation.
peace
fifth, to Woodbine:
Muslims don’t believe that God has incarnated, but that hardly means that he is incapable of doing so.
Meanwhile, their God manages to interact with the world without incarnating. He seems to be more powerful than your God.
Of course it does
check it out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkv85NEmjZI
Islam does not teach that God can directly communicate with people
check it out
http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/21368/does-allah-speak-to-people-directly
peace
keiths:
fifth:
Yes, really. Read it again:
You claim that “he” is Jesus. Yet the Bible says that no man can see his face and live. People did see Jesus’s face and live. Therefore the Bible contradicts you. “He” is not Jesus.
Who is right, you or the Bible?
fifth,
You’re weaseling. You told us that your God can’t communicate with us at all without incarnating. Allah doesn’t have that limitation.
not exactly. “God” is a word that describes the divine essence not his visible presence. Jesus is God in that he is the visible image of the invisible divine essence. (Col 1:15)
What Moses saw was not the fully formed visible image of God but a glimmer of his glory
quote:
Moses said, “Please show me your glory.”
(Exo 33:18)
end quote:
peace
Not at all Allah is much worse off.
He can’t reveal himself to us at all. Instead he reveals himself to an angel who reveals what he saw to a sinful prophet who reveals what he saw to us. Error can creep in at any point in the chain
It’s the telephone game on steroids
peace
fifth, to Woodbine:
I have, and I seem to understand the concept better than you do.
Unlike you, Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus incarnated once, when the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Any appearance by Christ before that time was therefore non-physical.
It amuses me that you are a heretic. Good for you, fifth!
That is my position as well
I have no major problem with the appearances being nonphysical. Christ does not have to be physical to be seen by us. There is a reason they are called visions.
peace
perhaps it’s your strawman who is the heretic.
You know the one who just knows that stripes and plaids are immoral but who can’t know for sure that words have meanings.
😉
peace
fifth,
Your God can’t even use “the telephone game”. Unless he incarnates, he can’t interact with the world at all.
Other Christians don’t have that problem, because their God is powerful enough to interact without incarnation.
fifth,
How many times did Jesus incarnate, fifth?
Not sure where you would get that idea certainly not from Scripture
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome (καταλαμβάνω understood/comprehend) it.
(Joh 1:1-5)
and
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him (the Word). He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
(Joh 1:9-11)
and
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(Joh 1:14)
end quote:
peace
one.
The one incarnation has effects that reach backward and forward in time. Just as you would expect when an atemporal God enters into time.
If you want to understand check this out
peace
fifth,
You have it backwards. If that were the case, then God wouldn’t have needed to hide his face in order to protect Moses.
When you get flustered, your mistakes are even dumber than usual.
Why has God turned his back on you, fifth, and allowed you to fail so publicly? A cynical person might start to wonder if he even exists.
fifth,
LOL. So the physical Jesus traveled backwards in time in order to moon Moses.
Is that your final answer?
keiths:
fifth:
Remember, they don’t believe in the time-traveling physical Jesus heresy. For them, Christophanies are non-physical.
Fifth,
Please give your pastor a link to this thread. I’d love to see his reaction.
A failed argument of yours from the old thread:
What? If God was not fully infleshed he would not have to hide his face to protect Moses?
Where could you possibly get that idea. It was not just the face of God’s glory that caused problems in the old covenant it was the afterglow of that glory.
quote:
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
(2Co 3:11-16)
end quote:
however the problem was not with God’s glory it was with Moses and the people.
quote:
Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And—————- I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
(Exo 33:18-20)
but now thanks to the incarnation we don’t have to be so shielded from the glory of God
quoteL
And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
(2Co 3:18)
I find it really interesting that an apostate can be so hungry for the word.
If you want more indepth Bible study I suggest you find your self a good church. We talk about this stuff all the time
😉
peace
“Hungry for the word”? Hardly. I just take advantage of my Christian upbringing to show how goofy Christianity is. Particularly your version of it.
For instance, not only is the physical Jesus a time traveler in your bizarre version of Christianity — he actually travels backward in time in order to create the very universe that produces him.
Unless the one incarnation encompasses all of time in some way. Reaching backward to the beginning and forward to the end.
Then you would have a being who is and is also always and eternally in the state of being and becoming
quote:
God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM (or I will be) has sent me to you.'”
(Exo 3:14)
end quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
welcome to the awesome Christian God 😉
peace
Christ does not have to travel backward in time, He was there all along.
quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
(Joh 1:1-3)
end quote:
peace
Good grief, fifth. You already told us that it was the incarnate Jesus who showed himself to Moses. If incarnation meant that we didn’t need to be shielded, then Moses himself wouldn’t have needed to be shielded.
You’re tripping over yourself right and left. Is your goal to make Christianity appear as stupid as possible?
I feel like I need to stress this to people: Christianity is a stupid belief system, but there are many Christians who are far smarter than fifth and would never make the pitiful arguments he is making in this thread.
You’re an embarrassment to your faith, fifth.
I would agree you take advantage of your Christian upbringing.
In fact you live out your life stealing from that worldview.
The problem is you have abandoned the very foundation of knowledge but sill act like you know stuff.
peace
Are you kidding me? The reason Moses needed to be shielded is because the new covenant hadn’t come. There were foreshadowings of course like this very episode .
The New Covenant did not arrive in it’s fullness at Sinai. Surely you remember that from your “Christian upbringing”
You are going to have to work on your approach. I think everyone has realized that this sort of bluster is your tell.
peace
fifth:
According to you, he has to travel backward in time.
Remember:
1. According to you, Jesus had to incarnate — to become a physical being within time — in order to interact with the material world.
2. Jesus only incarnated once, in Mary’s womb.
3. According to you, Moses was mooned by the physical Jesus, who did not yet exist, since he hadn’t incarnated yet.
4. Therefore the physical Jesus had to travel backward in time in order to moon Moses.
5. He also had to travel backward in time in order to create the very universe that produced him.
Hey Christians, what do you think of fifth’s time-traveling physical Jesus?
ETA:
6. He also had to travel backward in time in order to impregnate Mary, since the Holy Spirit — a timeless and immaterial being — could not do so itself. That’s right, folks. According to fifth, the physical Jesus traveled backward in time in order to create himself as a fetus in Mary’s womb. And you thought the book of Revelation was trippy.
fifth:
So you were wrong when you credited the incarnation:
You tripped over yourself again.
World’s Worst Apologist.
Please, please, give your pastor a link to this thread. I would love to see his reaction.
no you are assuming that incarnation starts at a certain time.
I’m saying that the incarnation (in some sense)* never starts and never ends. There is no before or after when it comes to an atemporal God. This should be obvious to any one with a “christian upbringing”
quote:
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.
(Mic 5:2)
and
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
(Eph 1:4)
and
but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
(1Pe 1:19-20)
and
in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word
(Tit 1:2-3a)
and
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.
(Pro 8:23-31)
and
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—
(1Jn 1:1-2)
and
And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. (Rev 21:6a)
and
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
(Rev 1:8)
and
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
(Rev 13:8)
etc etc etc——–etc etc etc and etc etc etc
* The in some sense does not have be fully infleshed it can be logical or spiritual. What is important is that God enters into temporal creation and interacts with us through Christ.
peace
No the New Covenant is a direct result of and requires the incarnation. Someone with a “Christian upbringing” should definitely know this
quote:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
(Luk 22:19-20)
end quote:
You might be a lot of things Keiths but Bible scholar you are not 😉
I still suggest you check out a local church we talk about this stuff all the time there. 😉
peace
fifth,
You said that the incarnation was protective. If so, then it should have protected Moses, since he was viewing the incarnate Jesus.
You screwed up again because you didn’t think things through properly. Christianity is clearly not your area of competence.
Just as I predicted….an omipotent/omniscient god having ‘difficulties’.
fifth,
Let’s see you try to dig yourself out of this one:
It was protective.
quote:
And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
(Exo 33:19)
end quote:
just not fully protective because it was not fully actual in the OC
quote:
But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
(Exo 33:20)
but
For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
(2Co 4:6)
and
And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
(2Co 3:18)
peace
Dembski pulled the time travel gambit, didn’t he? Something about the effects of sin going back in time to ruin the dinosaurs.