Theological Discussion Thread for the Benefit of Mr. Heddle

#1

Those who are about to philosophize salute you!

Robbie · #2

Ok Mr Heddle, please give your definition of God. Seems like a good place to begin.

#3

Hey, now, he promised me he'd square deterministic Calvinist Baptist theology with free will and moral culpability. Which is awesome, because every time I ask a determinist christian how god can simply doom people out of hand and still be "good," I get various iterations of "we just can't know the mind of god, but I'm sure he's working in our best interest, you hell-bound bastard."

#4

Good one, Robbie, but I think Mr. heddle has left the building. Either he realized we were too wily to confuse, or he reached climax.

@ CF Bunny -- I love it how believers tell you what's on the mind of God with absolute certainty, but when God's Will doesn't make sense (e.g., orphanage burns down, but Mighty Joe Young arrives on the scene too late), they say, "God works in mysterious ways."

#5

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, now, he promised me he'd square deterministic Calvinist Baptist theology with free will and moral culpability. Which is awesome, because every time I ask a determinist christian how god can simply doom people out of hand and still be "good," I get various iterations of "we just can't know the mind of god, but I'm sure he's working in our best interest, you hell-bound bastard."

I did. I'll keep my promise. The Calvinistic view of free will is very libertine. It is, in a nut shell, that you always do whatever you want to do most. There is no choosing what you don't want. It is deterministic in a way, but self-deterministic. There is no external coercion. Your actions are not determined by a puppet-master god but by your desires. And what man does not desire is god. So he never chooses god. Unless he is regenerated. Then he is given a desire for god. Then he chooses god. Of his own will. It is more nuanced than that--but that is a decent first order description. For a more detailed explanation, which I'm sure you are not interested in, I'd recommend reading Jonathan Edwards.

#6

heddle wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Hey, now, he promised me he'd square deterministic Calvinist Baptist theology with free will and moral culpability. Which is awesome, because every time I ask a determinist christian how god can simply doom people out of hand and still be "good," I get various iterations of "we just can't know the mind of god, but I'm sure he's working in our best interest, you hell-bound bastard."
I did. I'll keep my promise. The Calvinistic view of free will is very libertine. It is, in a nut shell, that you always do whatever you want to do most. There is no choosing what you don't want. It is deterministic in a way, but self-deterministic. There is no external coercion. Your actions are not determined by a puppet-master god but by your desires. And what man does not desire is god. So he never chooses god. Unless he is regenerated. Then he is given a desire for god. Then he chooses god. Of his own will. It is more nuanced than that--but that is a decent first order description. For a more detailed explanation, which I'm sure you are not interested in, I'd recommend reading Jonathan Edwards.

Okay, then where do my desires come from? They either were present at my birth or arose through environmental conditions during my life. Where do these come from, if not god? And why the regeneration rigamarole? Why not either implant the seed at birth or simply cause such desire to emerge during life? If god is not a puppet master, then why all the ambiguity? You're also denying coercion whilst denying the biblical hell. Eternal torture does seem an awful lot like coercion to me.

Perhaps I am particularly dense, but this seems like another variation of "we can't know the mind of god." Granted, we couldn't, allowing for omnipotence. But we can know right from wrong (I'm remembering a bit about a snake and a tree and good and evil fruit) and this is unambiguously wrong. Very wrong. You don't play three shell Monte with people's lives, and, according the the christian view, souls. To what purpose? To what end? If you want to be worshiped, make an appearance, and say so. If you want to keep people guessing, then that is not a benevolent dictator. It is a puppet master, a passive-aggressive deity that simply could not be trusted, and would willing disseminate various versions of 'his word' and then simply pull the carpet from beneath them.

Plus, anybody willing to torture for eternity can in no way, shape or form, be good. There is no justification for torture, let alone eternal torture.

Robbie · #7

heddle wrote:And what man does not desire is god. So he never chooses god. Unless he is regenerated. Then he is given a desire for god. Then he chooses god.

Define God.

#8

Where do these come from, if not god?

According to Calvinism the desire for God comes from God. It is what "regeneration" or to be precise "regeneration and conversion" nets a person. A new heart, with a desire for god. And so you then choose god.

You're also denying coercion whilst denying the biblical hell. Eternal torture does seem an awful lot like coercion to me.

No. I'm not denying biblical hell. Torture is an understandable description, however it is not coercion in the sense that coercion (as I used it) means to force you into a decision.

Plus, anybody willing to torture for eternity can in no way, shape or form, be good. There is no justification for torture, let alone eternal torture.

I understand that position. I struggle with a form of that problem. I don't have a good solution, a satisfying theodicy.

Define God

My definition of God is the transcendent being described in the bible.

Robbie · #9

heddle wrote:My definition of God is the transcendent being described in the bible.

Is this being infinite?

#10

Is this being infinite?

That's too vague. What do you mean by infinite? I think it is more precise to say that my definition of God, like it or not, is the god described in the bible. That way it is documented.

Robbie · #11

heddle wrote:
Is this being infinite?
That's too vague. What do you mean by infinite? I think it is more precise to say that my definition of God, like it or not, is the god described in the bible. That way it is documented.

Infinite meaning absolutely everything, all encompassing, the totality of all there is. (Please note, not the mathematical definition.) If God isn't infinite, then he isn't the totality and therefore finite. The God of the bible is contradictory since he's described as infinite yet possesses individual attributes, like love, hate, anger, compassion, spite, etc. All these attributes are finite, it doesn't make sense to say a thing is infinite since to be infinite means to be the totality of all there is, i.e. an infinite thing is a contradiction. For God to be infinite and have infinite attributes would be like saying, for example, a banana is infinite and has infinite attributes. It's yellow colour is infinite, it's soft centre is infinite, it's skin etc are all infinite... Any thing that exists is necessarily finite, since to exist means it has a relation with other things.

Is it a problem for you that God is ill defined in the bible and that, if he exists at all, he's finite?

Robbie · #12

"It's yellow colour is infinite, it's soft centre is infinite, it's skin etc are all infinite..."

Should read its, not it's... Not quite awake yet...

#13

No, it is only a problem that you are making a strawman and then asking me to defend it. So by your definition:

Infinite meaning absolutely everything, all encompassing, the totality of all there is.

God is not that. God is me and not you. Right there he is not the totality of all that there is.

The God of the bible is contradictory since he's described as infinite yet possesses individual attributes, like love, hate, anger, compassion, spite, etc. All these attributes are finite, it doesn't make sense to say a thing is infinite since to be infinite means to be the totality of all there is, i.e. an infinite thing is a contradiction.

Yes the god of the bible contradicts your strawman of "the totality of all there is". I can agree to that.

Robbie · #14

So we agree that an existing God is by definition finite, and therefore not the totality of all there is. Good.

For those following, it should be obvious that an existing God cannot be omniscient, omnipresent, etc or have any such attributes as described in the bible. God may exist, but is contingent, making God lesser than the totality, and as such no different than any other existing finite thing.

#15

You have to define all those terms. If my "omnipresent" you mean "God is everywhere at at all time" then I agree he is not in my keyboard and therefore not omnipresent. But I am not aware of the bible describing him in that manner. Likewise you have to define omniscient. Jesus, for example, readily admitted that he didn't know the timing of his second coming. So he didn't know everything. You are using this terms as blunt instruments to (I am guessing) set up some sort of late-night dormitory conundrum. You can save time by asking me "if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock that he can't lift?"

Robbie · #16

It's ok, I can see that you have your beliefs about God, I'm not really interested in changing them heddle. I was just curious as to how you'd react to some questions about the attributes that are commonly given to God as being infinite in nature. A basic Sunday School class can understand the terms I'm using, you're probably over-thinking things through all the discussions you've had online over the years with atheists trying to out-smart you.

You're right, the bible doesn't describe him in that manner, yet plenty of references to 'God is Infinite' are present. Funny that.

#17

But then you should argue against people making the statements you believe you can refute. Don't ask me to defend their theology.

Robbie · #18

Oh it's yours too alright.

#19

Robbie wrote:Oh it's yours too alright.

OK then let's cut to the chase. You just present my theology and then refute it and declare victory. You don't need me.

#20

heddle wrote:You have to define all those terms. If my "omnipresent" you mean "God is everywhere at at all time" then I agree he is not in my keyboard and therefore not omnipresent. But I am not aware of the bible describing him in that manner.

Psalm 139:7â€“10 (ESV):

'Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me'

Likewise you have to define omniscient. Jesus, for example, readily admitted that he didn't know the timing of his second coming. So he didn't know everything.

1 John 3:20 (ESV):

'for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.'

(Sourced from gotquestions.org)

#21

I have a question regarding the nature of heaven.
If things work out like it says in the bible, and some of us get to heaven while the rest end up in hell, then it is likely that even those who get to heaven will have friends and family members who don't.
To me this sounds like a situation where any one person will know that one or more of their loved ones is being tortured eternally.
How can this be heaven?
I cannot imagine any scenario whereby I could feel happy if I knew that at the same moment someone I loved was getting the old red hot pitchfork up the rear end, for now and all eternity.

How does your God resolve this problem?

#22

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote:You have to define all those terms. If my "omnipresent" you mean "God is everywhere at at all time" then I agree he is not in my keyboard and therefore not omnipresent. But I am not aware of the bible describing him in that manner.
Psalm 139:7â€“10 (ESV):
'Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me'

Likewise you have to define omniscient. Jesus, for example, readily admitted that he didn't know the timing of his second coming. So he didn't know everything.
1 John 3:20 (ESV):
'for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.'
(Sourced from gotquestions.org)

Yep. That fits with a view of omniscience sufficient for theological debate: nothing in man's heart is hidden from God. We have no secrets from God. It is when it is extended to irrelevancies like "does god know the last digit of pi?" or "how many bytes of storage are needed if god knows the location of every elementary particle?" that I am not interested in engaging in. And it presents a sufficient description of omnipresence for theological debate: that there is no escape from god, no place to hide.

#23

Dick Strawkins wrote:I have a question regarding the nature of heaven.
If things work out like it says in the bible, and some of us get to heaven while the rest end up in hell, then it is likely that even those who get to heaven will have friends and family members who don't.
To me this sounds like a situation where any one person will know that one or more of their loved ones is being tortured eternally.
How can this be heaven?
I cannot imagine any scenario whereby I could feel happy if I knew that at the same moment someone I loved was getting the old red hot pitchfork up the rear end, for now and all eternity.

How does your God resolve this problem?

I don't know. Almost every Christian I know struggles with this, and I'm not sure I believe the one's who say they don't. This is a case where I believe the standard answer is probably correct but it is extremely unsatisfying. The standard answer, in a nut shell, invokes god's most mysterious attribute, holiness. It argues that when we are finally in the unshielded presence of god's holiness we'll "get it." That may be correct but is unhelpful when considering the lost in general and unsaved (as far as one can tell) loved ones in particular. Incidentally there may be some sadness in heaven. We are told our tears will be wiped away--possibly indicating the presence of sadness.

But the bottom line is that I cannot fathom how I could be happy with the knowledge that others, including loved ones, are in hell. So, sorry, I don't have an answer. In general I don't have an answer to any of the "problem of evil" related questions.

#24

heddle wrote:
Robbie wrote:Oh it's yours too alright.
OK then let's cut to the chase. You just present my theology and then refute it and declare victory. You don't need me.

You've already done that by agreeing that God isn't the totality of all that is, which is enough information to see that your God is hardly a God at all. From that point, I'm not really interested in arguing about the particulars of your local deity and his mood swings.

#25

Robbie wrote:
heddle wrote:
Robbie wrote:Oh it's yours too alright.
OK then let's cut to the chase. You just present my theology and then refute it and declare victory. You don't need me.
You've already done that by agreeing that God isn't the totality of all that is, which is enough information to see that your God is hardly a God at all. From that point, I'm not really interested in arguing about the particulars of your local deity and his mood swings.

OK, cya. I'm sure you are correct and I have painted myself into a corner. Uncle.

#26

The way I see it, omniscience and omnipresence are essentially two sides of the same coin - in that being omniscient, he would know everything that is happening at every conceivable microsecond - which would effectively make him omnipresent. In which case, though he would not be present in a computer keyboard as one would normally understand it, by virtue of omniscience he would know absolutely everything that was occurring inside it. Which would be effectively the same as being inside the keyboard.

And you're the only one here bringing up such irrelevancies as "does god know the last digit of pi?" If you're not interested in engaging in such matters, then don't bring them up.

#27

Tigzy wrote: And you're the only one here bringing up such irrelevancies as "does god know the last digit of pi?" If you're not interested in engaging in such matters, then don't bring them up.

Fair enough. I apologize for thinking I knew where this was heading.

#28

@heddle

That's cool. I can see how you might interpret my line of questioning as being aggressive, or looking to score a 'gotcha'. As you've no doubt had to deal with many atheists with such an attitude, likewise I've had to deal with many theists in the same spirit. Hence why an aura of suspicion often prevails.

And though it's true that I place little stock in theology, I am genuinely curious about the reasons why people have faith, and to the reasoning behind the faith (even if someone says something along the lines of 'I don't have a reason for my beliefs, I just feel it' - that in itself is a reasoning based on the inherent qualities of the concept of 'feeling', IMO) - it is kind of fascinating in itself, and I do like to know the whys and wherefores of it.

Different tact, different question - and this is something I'm genuinely curious about: Why Christianity and not, say, Islam? What is it about Christianity that causes you to believe, and not Islam?

(Please note that though I may play devil's advocate in the ensuing discussion, I have no particular pitch towards Islam. I chose it as an example of being a faith that is almost equal to Xtianity in terms of adherents, and therefore one I can safely assume you'll already be familiar with to some degree.)

#29

Different tact, different question - and this is something I'm genuinely curious about: Why Christianity and not, say, Islam? What is it about Christianity that causes you to believe, and not Islam?

Well, superficially it is because I was an atheist but went to church with my wife to make her happy. At some point I realized I believed. It was a Christian church, therefor Christian. Theologically, as a Calvinist, I would say that I was predestined to salvation but god, using secondary means, used the situation I was in to reach me. So the answer depends on whether my beliefs are right or wrong. If they are wrong then the answer is simply that I happened to be in a Christian-dominant country so that when I went off the deep end the odds favored Christianity. If my beliefs are right then it is because of God's sovereign choice, and the Christian dominance is simply an artifact that God is not random but to first order saves people in clumps so they can support one another and fellowship.

#30

@Heddle

Hmmm...interesting. But surely there has to be something particular to your faith in itself that causes you to say, 'yes, I believe this', right?

#31

Hmmm...interesting. But surely there has to be something particular to your faith in itself that causes you to say, 'yes, I believe this', right?

Yes and no. I believe the original "faith" that I acquired came as a supernatural gift (Eph. 2.8) From there my faith has been strengthened by reading the bible and seeing (for the most part) a self consistent story of redemption. It has been strengthened by my science. And it has been strengthened by fellowship. But (in my opinion) at the heart if was not a rational choice (this makes sense so I choose God--although by that time it was starting to make sense) but an irrational supernatural act.

#32

@heddle

Ah right. Cheers for that. Doesn't tell me a lot, tbh, but if it works for you, then cool. For the record, I'm not one of those types who gets a particular joy out of trying to argue people out of their faith - largely because for the most part it's fruitless, and also because there are many people whose religion may well be the only thing that keeps them coping with the vicissitudes of life. Course, if a god debate comes up, then I might contribute - but I largely reserve my ire for those religious types who try to proselytise at me. I really fricken hate that.

Hence my antipathy towards you on PToS, when the 'fine-tuning' thing cropped up. I've seen it deployed as a proselytising tactic before - so apologies for being abrasive towards you.

In any case, I'm more concerned that atheism/secularism gets its house in order these days, what with Myers et al farting all over it...

#33

You note that your belief is not guided by reason, and as a scientist would surely concede that there can be no scientific proof of God.

Why, then, is this one subject -- the existence of God, the veracity of the bible, etc. -- exempt from being determined by reason or evidence? What fundamental principle does one apply to ascertain that the transmission you received from God is for real, but the message that Anita Ikonen received, that she's an equine alien from the planet Arcturus, is crap?

#34

Why, then, is this one subject -- the existence of God, the veracity of the bible, etc. -- exempt from being determined by reason or evidence?

Not just that one subject, but all other subjects. I live by "reason and reason alone" only when I am doing science. In all other areas of life: religion, relationships, sports, entertainment, etc. I live by some admixture of reason, emotions, beliefs, gut-feelings, instincts, intuition, morals, moral-conflicts, whims, desires, etc.

What fundamental principle does one apply to ascertain that the transmission you received from God is for real, but the message that Anita Ikonen received, that she's an equine alien from the planet Arcturus, is crap?

There is none, other than I believe it all hangs together. In general I have no way to show "my belief is right and yours is wrong." I don't even have a way to conclusively distinguish between my beliefs and insanity.

#35

heddle wrote: Not just that one subject, but all other subjects. I live by "reason and reason alone" only when I am doing science. In all other areas of life: religion, relationships, sports, entertainment, etc. I live by some admixture of reason, emotions, beliefs, gut-feelings, instincts, intuition, morals, moral-conflicts, whims, desires, etc.

No, no - not things like 'who should I marry?', "what looks good on the menu?' or "does jazz suck?' You've once again dodged the question: by what rational or rule do you apply evidence-based reasoning to your physics work, but gut feeling to perhaps the most impactful question, does God exist, and if so, what does He want us to do? Why not apply whims & emotions to physics, and the scientific method to God?

In general I have no way to show "my belief is right and yours is wrong." I don't even have a way to conclusively distinguish between my beliefs and insanity.

1) Well, then, that's a really shitty way of figuring out what's real or not;
2) Why should I treat your assertions with any less disdain than I do those of Ikonen, Sylvia Browne, or David Berkowitz?

#36

No, no - not things like 'who should I marry?', "what looks good on the menu?' or "does jazz suck?' You've once again dodged the question: by what rational or rule do you apply evidence-based reasoning to your physics work, but gut feeling to perhaps the most impactful question, does God exist, and if so, what does He want us to do? Why not apply whims & emotions to physics, and the scientific method to God?

Because physics is science and I am not supposed to apply anything but rationality and critical thinking to its pursuit. My relationship to God, on the other hand, certainly involves my emotions, beliefs, and other irrational aspects. I believe my salvation (or anyone's) was supernatural. By the definition of supernatural (at least the one I use) it would be pointless to apply "pure reason" to try to understand it.

The one place in my religion where I can apply something close to academic critical thinking is in biblical exegesis.

1) Well, then, that's a really shitty way of figuring out what's real or not;

OK. If you say so. But it seems to work for me. Are you sure you don't really mean: "That's a really shitty way to convince others that what you believe is real?" If it is that, then we can agree.

2) Why should I treat your assertions with any less disdain than I do those of Ikonen, Sylvia Browne, or David Berkowitz?

I can't think of a single reason. That's entirely up to you. It's like asking why I should treat you with any less disdain than I do, say, PZ or R. Carrier.

#37

I meant what I said: It's a really shitty way to figure out what's real or not. David Berkowitz' relationship with his neighbor's dog also involved his emotions, beliefs, and other irrational aspects. For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. No kidding.

Oh, and everything is science. If you don't get that, then you're a shitty scientist, too.

#38

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I meant what I said: It's a really shitty way to figure out what's real or not. David Berkowitz' relationship with his neighbor's dog also involved his emotions, beliefs, and other irrational aspects. For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. No kidding.

Oh, and everything is science. If you don't get that, then you're a shitty scientist, too.

A shitty scientist? Maybe. I'll worry about it commensurate with the weight I give to your ability to make such a judgment.

â€œThe highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion.â€
â€• Richard P. Feynman

â€œPhysics isn't the most important thing. Love is.â€
â€• Richard P. Feynman

Do you think Feynman would have agreed with you that everything is science? I don't think so.

#39

heddle wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I meant what I said: It's a really shitty way to figure out what's real or not. David Berkowitz' relationship with his neighbor's dog also involved his emotions, beliefs, and other irrational aspects. For I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. No kidding.

Oh, and everything is science. If you don't get that, then you're a shitty scientist, too.
A shitty scientist? Maybe. I'll worry about it commensurate with the weight I give to your ability to make such a judgment.

â€œThe highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion.â€
â€• Richard P. Feynman

â€œPhysics isn't the most important thing. Love is.â€
â€• Richard P. Feynman
Do you think Feynman would have agreed with you that everything is science? I don't think so.

In the above Feynman quote, he's giving his opinion on what the most important thing is, which for him isn't physics. He didn't say or suggest that everything is science. He may or may not have agreed with you, but it's unfair to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

Do you think love can't be science? If so, why not? Doesn't it have a cause? If it has a cause, then it's an empirical affair and therefore science. If it's not causal, then what is it?

#40

Robbie wrote:In the above Feynman quote, he's giving his opinion on what the most important thing is, which for him isn't physics. He didn't say or suggest that everything is science. He may or may not have agreed with you, but it's unfair to put words in the mouth of a dead man.

Do you think love can't be science? If so, why not? Doesn't it have a cause? If it has a cause, then it's an empirical affair and therefore science. If it's not causal, then what is it?

(Boldface added.)

Um. Very confused. Is that a typo? I am not arguing that Feynman would have agreed with me that everything is science. No, his quotes suggest to me that he would have agreed with me that everything is not science.
It was Matt C, who at least on this topic doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, who wrote:

Oh, and everything is science. If you don't get that, then you're a shitty scientist, too.

And I didn't put words in Feynman 's mouth, I quoted him. The only thing wrong with quoting a dead person is if you quote-mine them. Somehow I suspect your disdain for quoting dead people to indicate that that they they may or may not have agreed with one's position is probably selective and not universal. That's just a guess.

Yes I understand that in an extreme reductionist sense you can claim that love or appreciation of art and music is "science". At some level you can argue that we all are but elementary particles obeying the laws of physics. Enjoy that viewpoint. I don't share it--nor do I know even one actual scientist (and I literally know and work with hundreds of scientists) who has ever expressed the perspective that "everything is science" to me. Apparently all the scientists I know (and Feynman whom I didn't know) are "shitty scientists" according to Matt C.

#41

You misread me. My point is that you insert this Feynman quote about love being "the most important thing" in reaction to Matt C's argument that everything is science. One is an empirical argument (everything is science), the other is a value judgment (love is the most important thing). How, apart from some vague appeal to emotion, is this relevant exactly?

#42

Robbie wrote:You misread me. My point is that you insert this Feynman quote about love being "the most important thing" in reaction to Matt C's argument that everything is science. One is an empirical argument (everything is science), the other is a value judgment (love is the most important thing). How, apart from some vague appeal to emotion, is this relevant exactly?

How is not relevant? Accepting your definitions (for the sake of argument) you have contrasted one thing (an empirical observation) with another thing (a value judgment). I take that to mean you think they are different. Which one is science? If not both, then not everything is science. QED.

#43

heddle wrote:
Robbie wrote:You misread me. My point is that you insert this Feynman quote about love being "the most important thing" in reaction to Matt C's argument that everything is science. One is an empirical argument (everything is science), the other is a value judgment (love is the most important thing). How, apart from some vague appeal to emotion, is this relevant exactly?
How is not relevant? Accepting your definitions (for the sake of argument) you have contrasted one thing (an empirical observation) with another thing (a value judgment). I take that to mean you think they are different. Which one is science? If not both, then not everything is science. QED.

From my perspective, both observations are ultimately just that; observations. But my complaint is that you've inserted an observational fallacy, arguing from emotion, regardless of whether the argument that everything is science is sound or not.

#44

1) love is fully explained via science. All emotions are evolutionary adaptations, manifested in tangible brain & hormonal states, elicited by predictable stimuli;

2) even if love causes one to act " irrationally", that response too is explainable and predictable;

3) Feynman professing that personal relations were more important to him than his profession, is not the same as claiming love resides outside of the natural realm. Feynman 's value judgement, too, has a scientific explanation;

4) also, everything comes from the Greek.

#45

heddle wrote:You have to define all those terms. If my "omnipresent" you mean "God is everywhere at at all time" then I agree he is not in my keyboard and therefore not omnipresent. But I am not aware of the bible describing him in that manner. Likewise you have to define omniscient. Jesus, for example, readily admitted that he didn't know the timing of his second coming. So he didn't know everything. You are using this terms as blunt instruments to (I am guessing) set up some sort of late-night dormitory conundrum. You can save time by asking me "if god is omnipotent, can he make a rock that he can't lift?"

Lol at "using terms as blunt instruments".

I think what you mean is, "assuming that when I use words I actually use them in good faith and am not just tossing them into a word salad to try and fool people into accepting something which I clearly have no evidence for"

What a depressing and boring waste of time.

#46

SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote: What a depressing and boring waste of time.

You got that right. I've actually had far better discussions on theology on Pharyngula with people like owlmirror. What is more depressing is that if someone goes to the trouble of setting up a separate thread for a discussion it would imply, or so I thought, that off the main thread (for which sarcasm and snarkiness are front and center and expected) there might be some decent discussion. Not so much, as it turns out.

#47

heddle wrote:
SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote: What a depressing and boring waste of time.
You got that right. I've actually had far better discussions on theology on Pharyngula with people like owlmirror. What is more depressing is that if someone goes to the trouble of setting up a separate thread for a discussion it would imply, or so I thought, that off the main thread (for which sarcasm and snarkiness are front and center and expected) there might be some decent discussion. Not so much, as it turns out.

Go on then.

Give us one reason why we should seriously consider your conjecture that the Biblical God exists in this universe. If you can provide us with a reason, then we may be able to have a good discussion.

No waffle, obscurantism, casuistry, or word salad, please.

Just one reason.

Thanks. :)

#48

SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote:
heddle wrote:
SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote: What a depressing and boring waste of time.
You got that right. I've actually had far better discussions on theology on Pharyngula with people like owlmirror. What is more depressing is that if someone goes to the trouble of setting up a separate thread for a discussion it would imply, or so I thought, that off the main thread (for which sarcasm and snarkiness are front and center and expected) there might be some decent discussion. Not so much, as it turns out.
Go on then.

Give us one reason why we should seriously consider your conjecture that the Biblical God exists in this universe. If you can provide us with a reason, then we may be able to have a good discussion.

No waffle, obscurantism, casuistry, or word salad, please.

Just one reason.

Thanks. :)

"Give us one reason why we should seriously consider.."

Who is this us and this we for whom you have been appointed spokesperson?

I do not have any reason to give you to believe. Not one. This thread was set up by someone else to have a theological discussion with me (it failed, miserably). I did not set it up to proselytize. And if I did want to proselytize it would be to give to the gospel, not to give you any reason to believe. I don't know of any reasons to believe. It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.

So take your demand that I give you (and the people for whom you speak, whoever they are) a reason and shove 'it.

#49

heddle wrote:
SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote: What a depressing and boring waste of time.
You got that right. I've actually had far better discussions on theology on Pharyngula with people like owlmirror. What is more depressing is that if someone goes to the trouble of setting up a separate thread for a discussion it would imply, or so I thought, that off the main thread (for which sarcasm and snarkiness are front and center and expected) there might be some decent discussion. Not so much, as it turns out.

That's probably cos the problem's more with you, Heddle, than your theology, owing to the fact that you're an extremely weird, overly defensive, perpetually angry little shit.

Little wonder you enjoyed pharyngula more. :lol:

#50

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote:
SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote: What a depressing and boring waste of time.
You got that right. I've actually had far better discussions on theology on Pharyngula with people like owlmirror. What is more depressing is that if someone goes to the trouble of setting up a separate thread for a discussion it would imply, or so I thought, that off the main thread (for which sarcasm and snarkiness are front and center and expected) there might be some decent discussion. Not so much, as it turns out.
That's probably cos the problem's more with you, Heddle, than your theology, owing to the fact that you're an extremely weird, overly defensive, perpetually angry little shit.

Little wonder you enjoyed pharyngula more. :lol:

That's one theory.

Another theory is that a few of the people on pharyngula (e.g., owlmirror) who liked to talk theology also knew quite a bit about it. They did not think that "please define god" questions or "give us evidence for god or we are taking our ball and going home" challenges would lead to an interesting discussion. By the way, it's hard to read emotions over the internet so I'll set you straight: I am not angry and defensive with the people on this thread, I'm mocking them. I'll admit to being weird.

The bottom line is that you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are different across the board from pharyngula. At least as far you treat theists--the two sites are indistinguishable. Maybe you already knew that.

#51

heddle wrote:I'll set you straight: I am not angry and defensive with the people on this thread, I'm mocking them.

Yes, I'm sure many of us here feel mocked by people who act like sad, whiny losers. Nice work there.

The bottom line is that you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are different across the board from pharyngula. At least as far you treat theists--the two sites are indistinguishable. Maybe you already knew that.

Well, maybe indistinguishable in how you get treated, Heddle. Maybe it's not so much down to your theism, but more the fact that you're a massive twat, perhaps?

#52

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote:I'll set you straight: I am not angry and defensive with the people on this thread, I'm mocking them.
Yes, I'm sure many of us here feel mocked by people who act like sad, whiny losers. Nice work there.

The bottom line is that you are kidding yourselves if you think that you are different across the board from pharyngula. At least as far you treat theists--the two sites are indistinguishable. Maybe you already knew that.
Well, maybe indistinguishable in how you get treated, Heddle. Maybe it's not so much down to your theism, but more the fact that you're a massive twat, perhaps?

Fair enough. Your site, you get the last word.

#53

heddle wrote: Fair enough. Your site, you get the last word.

Do I? Splendid! Here ya go, then:

[youtube]kMsrE-9CLFg[/youtube]

#54

heddle wrote:
"Give us one reason why we should seriously consider.."

Who is this us and this we for whom you have been appointed spokesperson?

I do not have any reason to give you to believe. Not one. This thread was set up by someone else to have a theological discussion with me (it failed, miserably). I did not set it up to proselytize. And if I did want to proselytize it would be to give to the gospel, not to give you any reason to believe. I don't know of any reasons to believe. It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.

So take your demand that I give you (and the people for whom you speak, whoever they are) a reason and shove 'it.

I wasn't asking you to proselytise, i was asking you to provide a single reason to believe there is a God. You admit you haven't got one. Which means there can be no basis for the "decent discussion" you claim to want.

Sorta my original point.

#55

heddle wrote:
"Give us one reason why we should seriously consider.."

Who is this us and this we for whom you have been appointed spokesperson?

I do not have any reason to give you to believe. Not one. This thread was set up by someone else to have a theological discussion with me (it failed, miserably). I did not set it up to proselytize. And if I did want to proselytize it would be to give to the gospel, not to give you any reason to believe. I don't know of any reasons to believe. It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.

So take your demand that I give you (and the people for whom you speak, whoever they are) a reason and shove 'it.

I wasn't asking you to proselytise, i was asking you to provide a single reason to believe there is a God. You admit you haven't got one. Which means there can be no basis for the "decent discussion" you claim to want.

Sorta my original point.

#56

SÃ¸ren Lilholt wrote:
heddle wrote:
"Give us one reason why we should seriously consider.."

Who is this us and this we for whom you have been appointed spokesperson?

I do not have any reason to give you to believe. Not one. This thread was set up by someone else to have a theological discussion with me (it failed, miserably). I did not set it up to proselytize. And if I did want to proselytize it would be to give to the gospel, not to give you any reason to believe. I don't know of any reasons to believe. It's a message, not a reason. You hear the gospel and you either respond positively or negatively.

So take your demand that I give you (and the people for whom you speak, whoever they are) a reason and shove 'it.
I wasn't asking you to proselytise, i was asking you to provide a single reason to believe there is a God. You admit you haven't got one. Which means there can be no basis for the "decent discussion" you claim to want.

Sorta my original point.

Yeah, sure, no basis. None. Whatsoever. That is if you neglect virtually all famous intellectual atheists who were willing to make "for the sake of argument" debates. Bertrand Russell, for example, was willing to accept the premise that there was a god and the bible was his word, and then argue (formidably) why the Christian still faced a world of textual and theological problems. But you don't see how that's possible. You don't grasp the concept of a "for the sake of argument" discussion. It is one level of abstraction too deep.

They don't make atheists like they used to.

I'll admit I'm bummed about Tingzy. At first I thought he was looking for a real discussion--the only commenter on this thread I had hope for in terms of interesting sparring. But you? I knew from the start that you got nothing.

#57

heddle wrote: I'll admit I'm bummed about Tingzy. At first I thought he was looking for a real discussion--the only commenter on this thread I had hope for in terms of interesting sparring.

You might have had some hope of sparring. I was genuinely curious. I wasn't actually looking for some extended theological debate - trust me, Heddle, you're nothing new, and having some experience of debating religious types before, I'm pretty sure that neither me nor anyone is going to change your mind on matters theological *shrugs* You said yourself that your religion was not the result of rational choice. What therefore is there to 'spar' about, when your position is inspired by - and based upon - non-rationality? What exactly is there to discuss? You believe in your god, and...well, there ya go. There is plenty of stuff out there illustrating the numerous nonsenses in the Bible; if you continue to believe in the face of that, then there's little more which needs be said.

All I can say is that I hope you and your god are very happy together, and that you won't be too much of a dick to other people about it.

#58

Tigzy wrote:
heddle wrote: I'll admit I'm bummed about Tingzy. At first I thought he was looking for a real discussion--the only commenter on this thread I had hope for in terms of interesting sparring.
You might have had some hope of sparring. I was genuinely curious. I wasn't actually looking for some extended theological debate - trust me, Heddle, you're nothing new, and having some experience of debating religious types before, I'm pretty sure that neither me nor anyone is going to change your mind on matters theological *shrugs* You said yourself that your religion was not the result of rational choice. What therefore is there to 'spar' about, when your position is inspired by - and based upon - non-rationality? What exactly is there to discuss? You believe in your god, and...well, there ya go. There is plenty of stuff out there illustrating the numerous nonsenses in the Bible; if you continue to believe in the face of that, then there's little more which needs be said.

All I can say is that I hope you and your god are very happy together, and that you won't be too much of a dick to other people about it.

None of these debates never "really" change anyone's mind--that doesn't mean they are pointless with nothing to discuss and it doesn't mean they are not fun. And it doesn't mean that positions cannot be moved in modest amounts. I have had many interesting discussions with atheists and have modified some theological positions at least in part because of them. For example, I take a (partial) preterist viewpoint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

in part because of problems pointed out by atheists that I could not answer.

I have never had an atheist convert and attribute it to my discussions (which would be the wrong reason, even if it did happen). But I have had discussions with atheists who, unlike what I find here, are not just summarily dismissive and have said to me "that's interesting, I think you make a good point, I never thought of it that way" over some point of theology or biblical exegesis. They will still atheists, but intellectually they appreciated hearing a viewpoint that was new to them.

But I guess you have heard it all.

As for being a dick--I propose there is no reasonable person who could read this forum and the comments directed my way and not arrive at the conclusion that if I am being a dick--it is certainly in response to how I was treated. I'm not a turn-the-other-cheek kinda guy.

#59

heddle wrote: None of these debates never "really" change anyone's mind--that doesn't mean they are pointless with nothing to discuss and it doesn't mean they are not fun. And it doesn't mean that positions cannot be moved in modest amounts. I have had many interesting discussions with atheists and have modified some theological positions at least in part because of them. For example, I take a (partial) preterist viewpoint

Interesting. I once had a discussion with someone that led me to the view that the story of Jack and the Beanstalk could serve as a metaphor for the drugs trade. It didn't change my mind on it being naught but a fairytale, but it was an intriguing take on the matter nevertheless.

In the meantime, very few fucks about it were given by anyone, anywhere.

#60

heddle wrote:
Yeah, sure, no basis. None. Whatsoever.

You were asked to define what your 'God' is and you gave the forum nothing but a selection of word salads which got nobody anywhere. At a least a creationist knows what the God they believe in is.

In some ways I respect you for admitting you haven't got any grounds to believe the drivel that you do, but it does make you look a little foolish. That you have the chutzpah to berate others for their intellectual shortcomings merely adds to your charm.

That is if you neglect virtually all famous intellectual atheists who were willing to make "for the sake of argument" debates. Bertrand Russell, for example, was willing to accept the premise that there was a god and the bible was his word, and then argue (formidably) why the Christian still faced a world of textual and theological problems. But you don't see how that's possible. You don't grasp the concept of a "for the sake of argument" discussion. It is one level of abstraction too deep.

OK, for the sake of argument, then, why do people think God is all-loving when he is demonstrably a total cunt?