Author Topic: My five topics for Christian believers  (Read 11888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: My five topics for Christian believers
« Reply #87 on: June 17, 2014, 12:18:04 PM »
What does that even mean?

It means you are describing god as something that is just somewhat better than us.  Which makes no sense (as well as being a hard left turn from orthodoxy).

If we were talking about a genie or a wizard, sure, but when applied to God,

Really, what's the difference?  You are saying god is a conscious being with a mind, no?  He/it made choices and decisions to create the universe, no?  The universe was designed by him and brought into being by means far beyond us, no?  So what's the difference?

I really don't think you get to talk about how awesome sauce god is and then balk at omnipotence.  But I'll play along.  Okay, god's merely powerful.  Fine, fine.  He/ It cannot do anything we can conceive.  What's the limit?  What?  He cannot make cats understand him?  How do you even call that a god?  He cannot figure out how to communicate with us better than what is in the bible?  Seriously?  Your god is as lost and clueless as we are. 

Omniscience implies that the being should know the outcome of that which is contingent,

I have never understood the term "contingent" in the context of existential philosophy.  I find it pretentious.  Please use another term.  If your meaning is that god cannot know the future choices of free willed beings, okay, I can accept that as a limitation on omniscience.  But that's not what I'm talking about.  I am talking about simple, plain old design.  A designer makes designs with knowledge of how things work.  That's a kind of knowledge about the future, but not a free will issue.

If the problem is our brains need to be bigger, more efficiently, I can think of ways for that to work.  We're not talking about infinite concepts.  We don't need to understand everything.  We just need to understand better.  So our brains only need to be better, not infinite. 

We are talking about simple accuracy in the bible.  All the metaphorical and allegorical shit need not have been used.  Was the burning bush really necessary?  Did they really need to say Jericho was knocked down by tooting a horn?  Did their model of the universe need to describe a hard dome holding back a celestial ocean?

If we are talking about a being that is a lot smarter than us, why could it not have instructed us first?  Why do we need to be here, 2500 years after "god" allegedly started meddling in the Middle East (and why start there and why exclusively there?) only just starting to understand how the universe works?  Why is god not helping us now?

Forget what people say about God, the only quality of god that need be considered here is that God has a higher intelligence than Man. If that is the case then the chasm between it and man when it comes to communication gets bigger, not smaller. 

How much higher?  A little higher?  And no, the chasm does not get bigger.  I think people can understand cats better than, say, orangutans.  Thus that allows us to convey meaning to cats better than orangutans can.   

Then they wouldn't be cats. If I wanted to "design" a creature that could understand e, I could only design other O&O creatures, I could not "design" Dogs, Cats, People, etc.

Oh, for fucksakes.  So god did not design creatures that could understand it because either it had no clue how or it didn't want to because then it wouldn't be designing the creatures it wanted?  You are saying the design of people could not possibly have been better?  "Then we wouldn't have been people," is rejected as a retard answer.

Again, O&O isn't a concept that I accept as valid,

Then you're not talking about a god.  You might as well be talking about an advanced alien race, or the beings humans will evolve into in several million years (provided we don't wipe ourselves out first) or the AI robots we will create.

IE:  A being that lacks the capacity to understand, understanding regardless.

I do not understand this sentence.

It's like saying that of a God were O&O it would be able to add 2 + 2, have it equal 4, have 4 be an odd number and also be a 6.

No, that is not what I've been talking about.  You are getting all wound up over something I've not said.

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: My five topics for Christian believers
« Reply #88 on: June 17, 2014, 12:49:40 PM »
Quote from: Azdgari
Harmful to our understanding of the divine, I mean.

I still don't see how.

If Theology is the best we can do, and my clumsy efforts with my cat are the best I can do, then I think the two efforts and outcomes are a fairly good analogy, unless you were making a separate point that I missed.

Quote from: AzdgariI had taken your cat analogy to mean that you were the deity, and the cat was receiving your message.  Now you've switched the roles, in which [i
your[/i] efforts are analogous to theology, rather than your cat's efforts.  Perhaps we can dispense with the silly analogy and speak plainly?

The only thing that this analogy was meant to show is that higher beings can't communicate with lower beings on the higher beings terms, only the lower beings. That the information imparted by higher beings is limited by the lower beings capacity to understand, and that all of these efforts usually result in the understanding on the part of the lower beings being very slight and only barely understood.

Dispensing with the analogies, that is my point. 

I don't think that's the only metric but that's a topic for another time. If divine inspiration were a matter of appeal, I would worship the Viking Gods. (Truly, I would.)

Quote from: Azdgari
To have any other metric, we would have to have a conclusive example of divine inspiration to compare with.  Otherwise humans would have no idea outside of their own opinions of what to look for.  In other words, I don't believe you.

I am compelled to say that, based on the truths of philosophical theology, only the religions that are monotheistic and theological (not polytheistic or cosmological) might be true. By this standard (that of philosophical theology), it doesn't matter what I "want" to be true or what I "prefer" to be true, it maters what is and is not convincing to me.

I think that that is the metric by which we all proceed.

"Want" doesn't really apply, Man is what it is.

Quote from: Azdgari
If the deity is just some advanced alien that had nothing to do with us and isn't all-powerful, etc., then I agree.  But then I'd call it an alien, and not "God".  Unless it's threatening me, perhaps.

I wouldn't call that a god either but that's kind of beside the point. We're supposing that a divine being created things that were not them selves divine beings. Creatures with higher and lower levels of intelligence and ability. If what you're saying is that a divine being wouldn't do such a thing, I can olly answer that, if this hypothetical were the case, I would be glad that it did.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler