A proposal about a creator

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

So do you think it is okay for someone to state that "white people are better than black people" as "axiomatic" - something they just believe in, have no rational basis for, and choose not to defend? Wouldn't that be a problem akin to dogma?

DrBill writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Your false equivalence is a value judgment, not an existence statement.  I am not saying my god is better than yours.

The basis for my assertion is to explore the possibilities that might follow from such a foundation.

First, I see no reason to believe something simply arose from nothing, which gives rise to arguments from ignorance (heh! on my side too).  Hence the axiom; as a starting point, not a self-evident concept (this in partial reply to Bryan).  Indeed, it may be self-evident to me, but I cannot even try to convince others of its self-evidence ("convince...self-evident" is a contradiction in terms).

Second, and extending the first point a bit, current cosmology presents the something from nothing as an axiom, so I may be only engaging in tu quoque in noting it, but suggest my guess is no less valid than  theirs.

Does my proposal of simultaneous initiation of creator and created lead only to a kind of animism?  I don't think so, but could understand that some might.

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To DrBill]

Your false equivalence is a value judgment, not an existence statement.  I am not saying my god is better than yours. 

I don't have a god. But I wanted to understand if you thought that anyone can simply claim "axiomatic" if it makes sense to them.

 

First, I see no reason to believe something simply arose from nothing, which gives rise to arguments from ignorance

The choices are not just a) God or b) something from nothing. You appear to be concluding that since you see no reason to believe that something came from nothing, therefore God.

 

current cosmology presents the something from nothing as an axiom so I may be only engaging in tu quoque in noting it, but suggest my guess is no less valid than  theirs. 

Yes, it is. Far less valid (depending on how you define "God"). The alternative to "nothing" is "something." You are not proposing "something" as an axiom; you are proposing a God. Please forgive me if I am misremembering your God belief. If you define "God" as simply "something" then I see no problem.

Bryan writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

"The choices are not just a) God or b) something from nothing. You appear to be concluding that since you see no reason to believe that something came from nothing, therefore God."

In addition to which there are the issues:

Is god something? Did it come from nothing? Or is it eternal but everything somehow can't be eternal because of special pleading?

If god created everything what did he use? Did he create it from nothing, thereby violating the incredulity of something coming from nothing which is used as the basis for the belief, or did he use something which already existed, thereby violating god having created it?

Is the concept of nothing existing possible? It doesn't even make sense; for it to exist it would be something. Do we have any examples of nothing to show that it's possible or to examine what nothing is? Otherwise this just sounds like mumbo jumbo dressed up as an argument. 

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

Do you have a citation for your claim that cosmology presents something from nothing as an axiom? I'm not well versed in cosmology but I do know that a universe from nothing is not a consensus view, and that Lawrence Krause's something from nothing doesn't mean from nothing in the colloquial sense. 

 

Kaiden writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Hi, Dr. Bennett. I intend to post an Answer to DrBill, but there is a strange error. When I post “my” Answer, what ends up being posted under my name is an exact copy of Colin P’s Answer. I never touched Colin P’s Answer, have never copied it on my device, and have nothing to say to it, yet his answer gets swapped out for mine when I posted an Answer to DrBill’s OP.  Is there a way for you to check into this? I appreciate your help.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Kaiden]

Hi Kaiden, thanks for the report. I am looking into this and will be back to you shortly.

Kaiden writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

All fixed. Thank you for your help.

DrBill writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Bo:  I have 3 emails about new answers to this question.  The links only show the question, not the new answers. jfyi

Kaiden writes:

[To DrBill]

DrBill, it’s probably because I tried several times to see if my content would appear in my post, but deleted each failed attempt. I’ll try again maybe.

DrBill writes:
[To Kaiden]

thanks.  Maybe jump to the second (later) version, which was better formulated.

DrBill writes:

I'm not prepared to define God or god in a concrete way.  I conceive that it exists, but am not prepared to limit its actions, preferences, behaviors or otherwise define it except in a metaphysical way, perhaps with  comparisons to others' definition of essence.

It is it, not he, nor she.

It is the essence of will and power, without equivalence in form to any other thing.

It does not care.  It does not make us do or punish us for not doing anything.  It does not prevent us from learning about the cosmos or change things arbitrarily.  After creation, it let the cosmos alone to run itself.

It harbors life, not in the everyday sense like some sort of zoo, but in the metaphysical sense of "livingness". I've not worked out whether this means any activity on its part when the correct chemistry allows temporary capture of livingness, life-essence by things that we see as alive, or whether that was also within the cosmologic coincidences.

This is my most recent collection of thoughts, so I may have others at another time.  My best wishes are that I don't contradict myself as my thinking develops.

Jason Mathias writes:

[To DrBill]

Ok so condensing it down would you say these are the attributes of God?

Undefinable, infinite, formless, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and life-force?

So, perhaps God is awareness itself. According to these attributes, you are God and so am I. God would be looking through our eyes, not us as the us would be just a useful mental construction for survival purposes.

 

DrBill writes:
[To DrBill]

I wrote this in reply to Jason Mathias' previous comments/questions and the system puts it as if I wrote randomly, to wit "DrBill writes".  I can't control what the system does.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

Fair point. A deist, theist and panentheist could walk into a bar, all with different ideas about how 'God' works.

DrBill writes:
[To Rationalissimo]

I do not expect more.  In this sort of discussion, "fair point" is almost a rave.  Thanks.

Bryan writes:

"If the question is not subject to logical analysis, why are we addressing it?"

I'd be happy if people would stop making stupid arguments that they claim are based in logic. Until then I have every right to respond.

DrBill writes:

"But "axiomatic", not as self-evident, but as a simple basis upon which other arguments may be based . I choose not to defend (and cannot logically defend) my belief."

The second is a bigger problem for me, you say that you use this in the sense of a basis for argument, but then close that door by saying you're not prepared to discuss it. Sorry, that's not the basis for argument at all. You'appear to try to argue a baseless belief into something more than it is.

my words "...basis upon which other arguments..." vs your words, "...basis for argument..."

The former speaks of foundation to build on, not to be the subject of argument, implicit in you phrase.

Who says it's not permitted?

I anticipated some might

It's not evident, there's no basis for such a claim, there's no model with predictions which have all been borne to fruition as technology advanced a la Big Bang, but  where is it forbidden? It's illogical because it isn't supported by good reasoning.

The Big Bang is a model.  I don't disagree with it in the terms you've chosen to express support. Simply disagreeing with my point does not constitute evidence of poor reasoning.

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

"basis upon which other arguments"

So how exactly would you have a proposition which is the basis for a different argument in a discussion? That makes zero sense.

Do you know where that would make sense? In mathematics, as I said. 

It's NOT an axiom, it's a baseless belief, which you seem fairly comfortable acknowledging. Do you have this standard for any other beliefs?

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

"Two problems, the first is that the definition you use appears to relate to mathematics. I couldn't find any examples of it being the basis of a philosophical discussion. If you have any I would be interested to see such."

I notice you didn't answer this. I don't generally ignore specific requests whilst replying to a different part of the same post. 

DrBill writes:
[To Bryan]

I did not answer it because I'd have had to look up the wiki article again, as I did the last time you raised the comparison.  Sorry about that.

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

Did you respond the previous time? Because this is a foundational objection to your whole premise. 

Here's an axiom, you're a paedo. It's an axiom because I say so. Obviously I'm not really saying that, I'm illustrating how absurd your assertion is. 

DrBill writes:
[To Bryan]

Arguments

Piffle.

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

And what was that supposed to be?

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

Here's your previous question about this. I see no responses to my somewhat rambling and chaotic objections. So do you mean that last time I raised this issue you looked it up and then decided not to reply? Possibly because I was correct?

DrBill writes:
[To Bryan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom  I'm satisfied with their explanation. 

Axiom: " 'that which is thought worthy or fit'" or

Axiom: "As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning."

You did not find my previous question, but I prefer not to quibble over a detail.   I'm happy enough to complete your homework, as I'm only slightlier lazier than you.

You have often presented your thoughts under the umbrella of "a dumb cop" meme, as does Peter Falk in Columbo, but unlike his foils, I don't buy it.

Answer the questions, if you're able.  I think I express myself well enough to be understood by a bright 6 yo. Pretending to not understand does not work for me.

 

 

Bryan writes:

[To DrBill]

And yet you're not using it as a starting point in logic, but rather making an assertion which you then refuse to discuss. That's not even close.

"You did not find my previous question, but I prefer not to quibble over a detail." 

You prefer not to quibble when you're wrong? And I'm supposed to be impressed?

"I'm happy enough to complete your homework, as I'm only slightlier lazier than you."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is light-hearted, but your ad hominem appears to assume that I didn't bother looking. I did, at great length. You still haven't provided a citation which supports your claim, try to focus on the task at hand instead of talking about me. 

"You have often presented your thoughts under the umbrella of "a dumb cop" meme, as does Peter Falk in Columbo, but unlike his foils, I don't buy it."

You're straying into territory that you don't want to go. I have problems which hinder me and I'm open about it. I also have problems with people suggesting that I don't tell the truth. You can see in the previous thread how I was all over the place, if you think that it was some ploy to subsequently reveal that I knew all along that you were incorrect you have an overactive imagination. 

"Answer the questions, if you're able.  I think I express myself well enough to be understood by a bright 6 yo. Pretending to not understand does not work for me."

Another personal attack from someone who believes in things without evidence. Whatever, I already answered, and you're still wrong, it's not an axiom.

Bryan writes:
[To DrBill]

"I prefer n ot to quibble over a detail"

Well you've just made several posts where you demonstrate that you prefer to quibble over things which weren't said.  

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

I think atheists would try to persuade you that there is no god because they feel threatened by your belief.  Why else would they waste time arguing about someone they don't believe exists?

When people believe that prayer is a substitution for action, humanity suffers. When people believe that they "are protected with the blood of Jesus" and ignore CDC guidelines in a pandemic, humanity suffers. When people believe that gays deserve to die because God said so, humanity suffers. When people justify slavery because of the Bible, humanity suffers... I can literally go on for hours in all the ways humanity suffers because believing in something that doesn't exist. Superstition threatens humanity, whether it's appeasing the gods by throwing a virgin in a volcano or letting children die of easily-preventable conditions by following "Christian science." Do atheists feel threatened? Yes. We are humans first, humanity is being threatened; therefore, atheists feel threatened.

Colin P writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Why are you an atheist?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Colin P]

An atheist is someone who does not believe any gods exist. I don't believe any gods exist. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Colin P writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Have you written anywhere why you reached your conclusion?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Colin P]

Yes, I wrote this all down in a book: http://www.godtheconcept.com 

Colin P writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

What do you live for?  What goals, desires, treasures, purposes, or values?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Colin P]

Hi Colin, big question! I can give you the short version... I love life... I love living. I am sure this is largely due to my genetic disposition and base level of happiness, but also partly due to my environment and life circumstances. I love creating, whether it be sites like this, businesses, courses, books, software, whatever. If I have a "purpose" I see it as leaving humanity a little better than I left it (purpose I gave my life). As for values, I value well being as outlined in the moral framework called "sentiocentrism," which is basically valuing the well-being of organisms in proportion to their ability to experience well being. From well-being stems many other values.

Colin P writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

What reckoning is there for personal wrongdoing in your moral framework?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Colin P]

I am not sure I understand the question, at least the "reckoning" part. But let me try. First there is cause and effect. If I cheat on my wife, I will feel guilt and remorse. This will continue to cause me pain and suffering even if I never get caught. Then there is social correction. As a social species, if we do something frowned upon morally by others, we face the consequences. But that's all secondary to simply doing good for goodness sake and not because you will be punished or "reckoned with" if you don't. It is a different level of moral understanding and maturity not many people are fortunate enough to experience. I am happy to say that I am one of them who does.

Colin P writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Suppose you do something frowned upon, who would you be most accountable to?

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

[To Colin P]

If what is frowned upon by others is frowned upon by me as well, then myself.

Colin P writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

The one who is above all.  The one who is ultimate judge of what is frowned upon. The one to whom people are most accountable.  The one who is good throughout and who does good for goodness sake.  The one who loves perfectly.  These are things that describe God.

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

Do you consider behaving well because of fear of punishment to be a sign of having good morals? Personally I consider that to be acting selfishly, and yet I see religionists going on about morality, and also telling me that as an atheist I cannot have morals. Whilst I recognise that some people are entirely selfish and we need some level of punishment (though really we need better education, including education on how to raise children) as a deterrent, I act because of altruism. 

There are many good people who happen to be religious, but I suspect that they do so because they are good people, not because they are religious. Otherwise prisons would be full of atheists and not full of religionists as they actually are. 

Bryan writes:

"If I've heard you correctly... I think atheists would try to persuade you that there is no god because they feel threatened by your belief.  Why else would they waste time arguing about someone they don't believe exists? "

Have you come across atheists who try to persuade you that there is no god? I'm sure there are some who do, but I've never seen any, and I spend a lot of time watching atheist call in shows. 

If there are atheists that do that I can't really speak for them, but wouldn't it be more fruitful asking them instead of making a wild guess? 

With regards to feeling threatened by your beliefs I think you may be onto something, but probably not in the way you mean it. I feel threatened by people who set policy which affects the world based on magical thinking and religious belief. People who stand in the way of problem solving e.g. climate change, or who go to war over religion, who want to see problems in the middle East escalate and bring about "the end times". 

Then there are people who live in America who might feel threatened in being disowned by their family, or shunned in their community, or lose their job, simply for not believing in something which isn't supported by any evidence. Zero, zip, nada, not a jot or a tittle. 

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

But there is evidence.  For example, there is the evidence of creation.  If you look at a finger print close up you won't see a finger print.  Move back and look at the whole and you will.  It's similar with creation, where the wondrous imagination and skilful fine-tuning of God the creator are on display.  There is the evidence of the Bible, a remarkable book, or set of books, by any standard.  No mere human book has stood the test of time like it has, and in which God the communicator talks to us.  And there is the evidence of different peoples' testimonies about Jesus, as recorded within the Bible.  Those writers, and others they wrote about, learning for themselves about God the saviour, and silently posing the question, "Who is Jesus?"

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

Saying "the evidence of creation" is a begging the question fallacy. Not the best of places to use such things. 

The fine tuning argument is asinine,  and is an example of both ad hoc and argument from personal incredulity fallacies. And you are using circular reasoning in begging the question again. 

The bible is evidence of the bible existing and very little else. It's full of contradictions and false claims, which is hardly surprising given that it was written by people who needed to make up stories for things they had no understanding of. 

And again you beg the question in saying "no mere human book". We know that humans write books and have no examples of books not written by non humans. We know that humans have invented thousands of religions. We know that the bible copies stories from previous religions. All the indications point to it being made up by humans and nothing points to it being inspired by the immoral, petty, petulant character from the book. 

What does standing the test of time mean? That people have believed it for a long time? And what value does that add? Sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy. Hinduism is 4000 years old, shouldn't that make you a Hindu?

No, there is no evidence about people's testimonies, there is evidence that there are claims of people's testimonies. Not the same thing.

I hope you aren't under the impression that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the names of the gospels. Surely not. 

You asked why your beliefs might threaten people and when I provided a small selection of many possible reasons your response was to just completely ignore that and focus on the what wasn't really the point of all I said, albeit it was accurate. How interesting. 

So was this a test to see how many logical fallacies you could squeeze into one post? Pretty good effort.

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Hi Bryan, I'll attempt a point by point response/reply approach this time.  But see my plea at the end.

On your first paragraph, yes, quite right!  I had in mind the universe.  I should have written "the universe" instead of "creation" in that sentence and the one after.  My own belief caught me out and my words contained circular reasoning.  Thank you.

Your second paragraph (fine tuning) consists of a set of unsupported assertions with no substantive address to the matter.  It's a fallacious line.

Your third paragraph (Bible content) is another set of unsupported assertions.  Same problem.

Your fourth paragraph (Bible writing) in the first part states I'm begging the question.  I see why you say that, but I don't accept it.  I think my phrase "no mere human book..." can be understood colloquially as "the reason I don't think this is a human only book is that no other human book..."  In the second part it argues against something I didn't argue for.  That's another fallacy.  In the third part you make a statement, "All the indications..."  That's not true in my opinion.  There is the internal evidence of the Bible itself.  Namely that it contains a strong narrative about a plan of salvation for people that involve's God's efforts alone, and for which there is no comparable human inspired book in terms of content breadth and depth, and authorship over thousands of years.  Finally on your fourth paragraph, in the last part of the last sentence it contains more unsupported assertions.  Back to that fallacy again.

Your fifth paragraph is a question: "what does 'test of time' mean?"  Here's one online definition: "To remain useful or valued over a long period of time; to last a long time."

Your sixth paragraph (testimonies) in its second clause contains the phrase "that there are claims".  My original sentence contained the phrase, "as recorded in the Bible."  It looks to me as those map to each other, and say the same thing.  Taking those two phrases away we are left with identical wording, "there is evidence ... of people's claims".  So it looks to me as though your second clause is in complete agreement with what I wrote.  Your first clause addresses something I didn't write about, namely evidence about people's testimonies.  So you've addressed something I didn't write about, and you appear as argumentative for argument's sake, that is, picking over details of interpretation about the sentences I used, whilst ignoring the main point, which is the testimonies.

Your seventh point (gospel names) appears to be irrelevant, certainly I didn't write about them.

Your eighth point (beliefs threatening) complains about how I chose to respond.  Regarding the points you made which I didn't address, your complaint reads as though you infer something from my silence - which would be another fallacy of course.  Other than your complaint about my response, you haven't addressed my response itself, either.  But I'm not complaining about silence in that way, that's your choice.

I hope this goes some way to satisfying you for this style of discussion.  Often you raise many points in your posts.  Would you consider raising only one or two points, instead of raising and expecting a reply on every single point you can think of, great or small?  Fascinating though it is, sadly we are time-limited.  It could be a case of "less is more"?

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

So you reply to me with something which was the least point, or not even a point, and you make various claims, then you make numerous false claims accusing me of fallacies which I did not commit, and it's okay for you to answer at length but not for me to answer at length? That doesn't seem fair, however I do understand how long winded and involved this all gets.

You have taken things which I am pointing out and saying "I didn't say that". No, I am saying that. Which part of that isn't clear? Let take the one near the end if I do only one:

"Your first clause addresses something I didn't write about, namely evidence about people's testimonies"

No no no no. I very clearly pointed out that where you claim that there are testimonies in the bible, I am saying that they are not testimonies, they are claims of testimonies. We do not have any people named and giving first hand accounts. We have only claims that there are people who are giving testimonies. 

Sorry but every single claim of me committing fallacies is wrong, and you seem to have trouble comprehending simples things. That might sound a bit harsh but you don't want a proper response where I can spell things out. This website is supposed to be about logical fallacies and yet for all the time you spend here you don't seem to have much of a grasp of them. Instead you seem to just use answers as an excuse to preach your religion and if it's irrelevant to the question I'll say so. As I did on this occasion, and yet you chose to continue off topic and then complain about time and effort. I'm happy to discuss fallacies but this preaching isn't really on. At least you do respond to what is said, unlike Mr Aberdeen. 

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Thank you. You've helped me by concentrating on one point. And with your extra sentence of explanation I understand your point better. But before I reply I want to ask you a question. This is so I can clarify and try to avoid an assumption. For my question I want to choose a gospel. It can be any gospel. Shall we say Mark's? For the example, and keeping it simple for me, who do you say is making the claim?

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

The author of Matthew is unknown.

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Regarding claims of testimonies in the Bible: are you saying the author of Matthew is making claims of testimonies, or others are making claims about the authorship of Matthew, or something else?

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

An example is when some people claim that there are however many people who witnessed an event, and they say that those all count as testimonies. They don't, there is a claim in the gospel that these people witnessed something. 

Also Matthew is reckoned to be copied from Mark, so the claims become even more distant from any supposed witnesses.

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Here is my answer to an earlier question you posed, I think it addresses your point here, too.

Yes!  I accept that the four gospels of Jesus in the Bible, that we have modern day translations of, were written in the originals by people we identify as Matthew (aka Levi, the tax collector, as a first hand witness), Mark (recording Peter's account, and likely present as a first hand witness to some of the events), Luke (collating the testimonies of others) and John (as a first hand witness). Granted the writers do not provide their own names in their accounts, but I accept the attribution to these four named people.

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

So you, who already believe that everything in the bible is real, believe something which biblical scholars disagree with. That is not at all compelling. 

The consensus among scholars is that these gospels were written by professional scribes 50 years after the death of Jesus, based on oral traditions among christians. These gospels tell the story which the evolving church had chosen to present and the 100+ gospels which tell a different story were branded heresy as part of gnosticism and suppressed. 

Anyway, anonymous documents cannot be presented as testimony as they lack any provenance. Even if they had provenance, the best you are going to get is evidence that a person called Jesus existed. What I meant when I referred to no evidence was that there is such a thing as a god. And all of this, as with all of your posts, has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this website. I need to stop allowing you to continually draw me into irrelevant off topic discussions, but I find it hard to allow baseless assertions to stand. 

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

Well, let's leave it there on this one. Hopefully we've learnt a bit more about our positions. If so we've advanced.

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

I agree, though I just added something which is more relevant to this website.

Bryan writes:

[To Colin P]

Incidentally, when I mentioned that you didn't respond to what I said in response to your request, and instead focused on an irrelevant minor detail, just in case you missed it or didn't make the link:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/egwUSB9E/focusing_on_minor_details.html

And just claiming that I seemed to infer something isn't a fallacy by the way. How would you know what I inferred anyway unless I told you? (Not sure if you're confusing infer and imply) I said it was interesting, whereas the consensus view is that it was a red herring response. 

Edit: oh and you claimed that I didn't respond to your points either. That's patently false as I responded to everything you said. 

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

But there is evidence.  For example, there is the evidence of creation. 

We must have different sets of eyes. You see the creation created by your god. I see natural phenomena.

If you look at a finger print close up you won't see a finger print.  Move back and look at the whole and you will.

We must have different sets of eyes to see these things. Complexity is not equal to, therefore, god exists.

It's similar with creation, where the wondrous imagination and skilful fine-tuning of God the creator are on display. 

Fine-tuning does not explain god exists. You only see these things because you assumed that there is. Giving up is not an excuse to learn things. How else are we--the humanity, going forward if we stop learning things and rely on "everything is created, therefore, god exists?" We won't be using computers and the internet if that is the only answer.

There is the evidence of the Bible, a remarkable book, or set of books, by any standard.  

When you say evidence, do you mean to say, Egypt exists, therefore the Bible is true? You entered into a pretense that which also similar to other cultures that their gods exist because the place exists. Thereby, it is a circular argument.

No mere human book has stood the test of time like it has, and in which God the communicator talks to us.

Are you sure about that? Have you looked into other religions older than your book?

And there is the evidence of different peoples' testimonies about Jesus, as recorded within the Bible.

Yes, testimonies that we can't verify. Thousands of "dead people" that we can't interview or ask questions the validity of their claims are moot in this case.

Those writers, and others they wrote about, learning for themselves about God the saviour, and silently posing the question, "Who is Jesus?" 

Those writers that we don't know who is impossible to ask. We don't even know who wrote the Gospels. We don't even know who "Jesus" is or did he exist? Was he a criminal or popular apologist and people entertained his "teachings" as if they were from "gods" he claimed. We don't even know who told the correct stories of "Jesus's" life because Peter, Luke, and Matthew were getting stories from Mark. If you say, Paul. Paul never saw Jesus. He saw an apparition, we don't know what exactly he saw and he also wrote people's experiences about Jesus. Personal experience by the way is not proof or evidence of existence. I may be inclined to say that the Lord of the Rings is true because Gandalf exists.

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

We must have different sets of eyes. You see the creation created by your god. I see natural phenomena.

Do you think those two things are mutually exclusive, and if so, why?

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

Natural means not creates by mankind, which is based on us being the only known creative agent. I think any creative agent greater than or equal to us would qualify as not being natural. 

I assume that you disagree yet you offer no rationale of your own so maybe I'm wrong. 

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

I have no difficulty believing that God wants people to study and try to understand the natural phenomena and natural laws present in the amazing natural universe he made.

Bryan writes:

[To Colin P]

I've no idea what this is a response to. 

Btw I was just reminded of something, the gospels claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, and this comes from a translation error. If the gospels were eye witness testimonies, or testimonies of having spoken to an alleged eye witness, why would they have been translating previous written material? This shows quite clearly that they were written by professional scribes centuries later, as most, if not not all, biblical scholars agree. Indeed the disciples would necessarily have been uneducated fisherman and the like, not extremely well educated in literature and rhetoric.

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

You engage with this through firm views put clearly!

In fact, many biblical scholars are satisfied that all the original New Testament documents were written in the 1st Century.  And many believe that the modern language translations we have now are faithful to what was originally written.

The Bible is the most studied ancient document there is.  Over hundreds of years there has been an enormous amount of research time invested in discovery, correlation, verification and translation.  Large numbers of scholars have pored over the available manuscripts to arrive at our modern language translations.  Where a word or phrase might have an alternative rendering, our modern editions have footnotes to indicate this.  And they make clear the few parts that scholars believe are later additions.

However there have always been groups and individuals, both scholarly and otherwise, that want to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Bible in order to discredit it by any means possible.  They aim to achieve what they want by publishing their views as widely as possible knowing that few people have time or are willing to check the facts for themselves.

For example, the American Humanist Association states that humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God.  They also say the Bible is an unreliable authority.  But whilst they give their reasons, they do not critique their reasoning.  They place themselves firmly in a particular camp and then share their views.  So fairly obviously their main appeal is to people already sympathetic to that camp.

The claim that the New Testament was not written originally in the 1st century, or that the originals cannot be reconstructed with any certainty from the manuscripts available, are ideas promoted by those who want to discredit the Bible.  Much scholarly opinion does not support these ideas.  Biblical scholars reach their conclusions based on what they know about the process used to copy documents by hand, and by textual criticism of the manuscripts, and manuscript fragments, that they have.  There is a vast number of these, much greater than for any other ancient non-Biblical writings.

To get a sense of the scale of how much we have, consider that there are well over six thousand Greek language New Testament manuscript fragments, and many more when other ancient languages are taken into account.  For trusted non-Biblical ancient manuscripts, the number of supporting fragments is very small by comparison, and the elapsed time between the lost originals and the oldest extant copies is much greater too.

The great thing about the Bible is that modern language translations are widely accessible.  Most people can obtain one, find out what it says, and try to understand it for themselves.  And to better inform themselves they can discuss it openly with people from various camps.  Virtually anyone reading this can engage with the Bible on their own account in this way.

 

Bryan writes:

[To Colin P]

Most Christians haven't read the bible, and many become atheists as a result of reading it. 

Before worrying about whether the bible is the word of god you would first have to establish that there is such a thing. Circular arguments do not achieve anything remotely close to that. 

I see that you say you believe because you read the bible and thought it had good moral reasoning. Setting aside that I think it has awful morality and that you very likely have far better morals of your own, do you think that it isn't possible for people to have written down the morals set out in the bible without a god? W e know that people exist and that people can develop moral systems. On the other side we have a book of questionable morals (at best) which is also the claim that a god exists. I don't understand why these morals would necessarily lead to a conclusion that a god exists when there is a far simpler and more obvious and reasonable option.

Bryan writes:
[To Colin P]

For all the study and making stuff up the result is tens of thousands of different sects of Christianity because nobody can agree on what the bible says or means. If this was as important as people claim, and inspired by a god, that's one useless god that couldn't convey a single and clear message which shouldn't require interpretation in the first place. Sorry that's a huge fail. 

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

For example, the American Humanist Association states that humanists reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God.  They also say the Bible is an unreliable authority.  But whilst they give their reasons, they do not critique their reasoning.  They place themselves firmly in a particular camp and then share their views.  So fairly obviously their main appeal is to people already sympathetic to that camp. 

NO. The AHA already mentioned criticizes the validity of the bible and not appealing to any individual. I don't work for AHA nor a member and sometimes I have criticisms because as an atheist and a "humanist" I have sets of values myself. They may not like I may not like their values as well. That's the difference because we individually think, unlike Christian organization that parrots what their leaders have to say or do.

The great thing about the Bible is that modern language translations are widely accessible.  Most people can obtain one, find out what it says, and try to understand it for themselves.  And to better inform themselves they can discuss it openly with people from various camps.  Virtually anyone reading this can engage with the Bible on their own account in this way. 

In some ways, yes. But there are thousands of Christian denominations that don't agree about the bible. It's not the "modern language translation" it's the interpretation of that translations.

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

Do I understand correctly, that you approve humanists for their diversity of thought, and disapprove Christians who belong to a particular group for their uniformity of thought, but disapprove Christians generally for their diversity of thought?  Also, do I understand correctly that you believe Christians do not think for themselves?  (I think you're answers will be Yes and Yes... but checking anyway)

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

Do I understand correctly, that you approve humanists for their diversity of thought, and disapprove Christians who belong to a particular group for their uniformity of thought, but disapprove Christians generally for their diversity of thought?

I didn't say I agree or approve what their organization's tenets. That's the reason why I don't belong to any atheist groups. But one thing we have in common. The validity for the existence of god that all Christians posit that it exists. I disapprove of the majority of the Christians' vitriol towards non-believers' morality [If you get my point]. As if, atheists are sinful and criminals without god. The fact is, it's the opposite [Search for the percentage of criminals in prisons]. Also, what exactly has many Christians diversity of thought?

Also, do I understand correctly that you believe Christians do not think for themselves?  (I think you're answers will be Yes and Yes... but checking anyway) 

There is a billion-plus believers/theists 'thought' that god exists, but, no one came in front to prove that. That is a huge dilemma for Christians. And I never said that "Christians do not think for themselves" Simply put the majority of Christians parrot what their leaders say or do. I have a few Christian friends that don't ever go to church and they are good people, they believe what they believe but they admit they can't prove god. What matters to them is they don't need to prove for what they believe. I respect those people because they admitted they can't. Those Christians that go to church regularly are the ones that are arrogant and vicious to those who don't belong to their group.

 

 

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

Do atheists say they are righteous, that is, perfect?

Clint C writes:

[To Colin P]

Do you think those two things are mutually exclusive, and if so, why?

So you think that everything I see and you see is created by your god? Yes. they are separate. Because your default position is, GODDIDIT. My default position is, I don't know. I'll investigate and read how these things happen. Whereas I can't investigate the existence of a god or any gods. All you have is a book of claims that doesn't explain a lot of natural phenomena and your immediate conclusion is, there must be a creator.

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

To clarify... Do you leave open the possibility that God did create the universe?  Or have you decided that God does not exist and therefore no god created the universe?

Bryan writes:

[To Colin P]

To clarify, why do you believe in a god? Did you begin with no god belief and you saw evidence of a god and then believed, or were you told when you were a child and subsequently rationalised your reasons for believing? 

"Do you leave open the possibility that God did create the universe?  Or have you decided that God does not exist and therefore no god created the universe?"

Why would he have to decide that something doesn't exist to not believe it? Do you have that standard for anything else? Do you believe in flying pigs until there is evidence that they don't exist? Do you believe in unicorns, pixies, chupa cabra,  kobolds, kraken, titans, orcs,  leprechauns, dragons, etc. as a default position until it is shown that they don't exist? That sounds like one messed up life if you have to navigate all sorts of made up beings, or inconsistent standards because you already believe.

Colin P writes:
[To Bryan]

I asked the question because following Clint's last two answers I was unsure whether or not he leaves open the possibility of God existing.  I'll re-post my question to him and try to be clearer.

To answer your first question, I believe in the God of the Bible because one day I joined a small group exploring what the Bible says.  During and following this I saw, understood and accepted the moral reasoning and free gift offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

To clarify... Do you leave open the possibility that God did create the universe?  Or have you decided that God does not exist and therefore no god created the universe?

I am open to anything with sound arguments and evidence. But, if there is/are no evidence you can provide, then this argument is moot.

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

Clint, I'm adjusting my question and re-posting following a comment by Bryan.  Here you go: I would like to know, if you are willing to say, do you leave open the possibility of God existing, or not?

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

Clint, I'm adjusting my question and re-posting following a comment by Bryan.  Here you go: I would like to know, if you are willing to say, do you leave open the possibility of God existing, or not? 

 

Yes. I am open to anything. Skepticism is part of my inquisitive mind. However, if you have definitive proof that god exists, I am willing to see it through. If you're only going through mental gymnastics. Then how are you going to convince me of it?

Colin P writes:
[To Clint C]

I was trying to understand your view that (a) God couldn't create a universe that works via natural phenomena.

Clint C writes:
[To Colin P]

I was trying to understand your view that (a) God couldn't create a universe that works via natural phenomena. 

-- If god exists, the explanation is sufficient. All we hear is from the people whose decisions are constantly influenced by their peers' opinions.

 

DrBill writes:

Kalden  Para 1 ends

"So, besides choosing to not defend a case for the proposition that there is a creator, do you intend to not even defend this proposition against objections?"

I do, although if the objections are to the utility/usefulness of the proposition as a starting point, I'll have to thread my way carefully, since the utility is the basis for presenting it.

Regarding "simultaneous creation of creator and created", it's simply a "work-around" kind of idea mentioned as a possibility that overcomes other objections.  I'm not convinced it's true, but would attempt to defend it.  It's worth noting that it's just one of three structures built on the axiomatic foundation that I cast, though they were more clearly presented in my other question with a similar title. I'm having trouble locating the newer question, where I use iT to distinguish the force's source from other meanings of God/gods.  

However, it seems to me that if the creator began to exist, then the creator was not brought into being by anything else. After all, if the creator was brought into being by something else, then the creator wouldn’t be the creator, after all, which is contrary to hypothesis. Do you intend for your proposal to imply that the creator was not brought into being by anything else? 

I don't see any way around your critique unless iT existed all along, not perceptible until there was something to perceive with, and iT's self-revelation was coincident with the Universe's initiation.

Kaiden writes:
[To DrBill]

Thank you, DrBill. Do you agree that probably all objections to the existence of the sort of God you believe in require a rebuttal from you? I mean, if the arguments you develop are based upon the proposition there is a God (or a god) , then I suppose that if there is good reason to believe that the proposition is false, then there is good reason to believe that any arguments you develop from that proposition are unsound. And it seems to me that an unsound argument won’t have much utility to you. In other words, objections to the proposition there is God   (or a god) seem to inherently threaten the utility of arguments that draw upon it as a starting point. Therefore, all of the objections to the existence of God (or god) (of the sort that you believe in) should compel you to rebut them. 

Regarding your second paragraph, I will have a look at your more recent Question, then.

Regarding your final paragraph, so you propose that the creator became a perceptible being upon creating the world, rather than coming into existence ? This clarification evades one particular looming issue that I was prepared to post, thank you. However, do you think that the creator could be perceptible to itself even without creation (such as, or analogous to, having self-conciousness)? Do you even propose in the first place that the creator is self-conscious?

DrBill writes:
[To Kaiden]

Regarding your first paragraph ("Do you agree....compel you to rebut them"), I have two comments.

The iT is a conceptual foundation, and at least for me, all "god" references are conflated with histories and are not what iT is, so it may be a limitation of language.  A rebuttal that clarifies what iT is and what iT is not wrt your meaning of "god" could be useful, and I would undertake it.

Anyone can disagree with the concept of iT, and simply decide there's not enough to propose, or speculate on, consequences of interest.  The discussions I am hoping for have to do with thinking of consequences, not as proof of the concept, of course, but to explore possibilities that may or better yet must arise from the reductio initial proposition.

Your third paragraph is exactly the kind of discussion I'm looking for (thank you), in part because it examines possibilities and forces me to examine ideas I had not considered.  So you ask "[is] the creator perceptible to itself...?" and my answer is "yes".  Since I did not imagine iT to have been in an estivative state or asleep or unconscious, it suggests an alternative universe, now that you asked.

 

Kaiden writes:

      Maintaining that all “god” references are not what iT is seems to rule out any knowledge about iT. This is because if we knew something about iT, and presuming that our knowledge would be in propositional form, we would have to possess propositions that do refer to iT. This may not be a good argument, but I am just putting this on the table to see what you think. I'm not sure how well this would sit with the rest of your position, but I'll wait to hear what you have to say before continuing. 

"Anyone can disagree with the concept of iT..."

      I think I understand this paragraph. You are interested not in proving that there is a God, but in seeing what would follow if it were true that there is a God. And since concepts of God are controversial and difficult to ground in reason, you resort to just putting a concept on the table and going with it to see what would follow if that God were to exist. Am I interpreting you correctly?  

Thank you for your patience, DrBill, during my busy summer. 

From, Kaiden