Matt Slick's TAG
Tenko
Debunk by Tenko
Matt Slick's Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
as quoted by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
(1) Logical absolutes exist.
(2) Logical absolutes are transcendent: not dependent on space, time,
thought, etc. They are not the product of the physical universe
(atoms, motion, heat, etc.), because if the physical universe were to
disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
(3) Therefore, logical absolutes are concepts by nature that only a
transcendent, absolute, perfect mind could have authored. This entity
is named God.
(A) Logical absolutes (the law of non-contradiction) transcend even
God. Accept or reject (A) below:
[1] Is quality X of God true, or false?
[1A] If X is both true and false simultaneously, or if X is neither
true nor false simultaneously [if God is impervious to the law of non-
contradiction], then there is no way to understand or communicate with
certainty God's quality X, and there is no way for the masses to
possibly obey any contradictory moral instructions. Furthermore, God
would become irrelevant as a source of knowledge or moral instruction
regarding any contradictory X.
[1B] If each quality of God is absolutely true or false [if logical
absolutes transcend God], then TAG premise (3) is unsound, as logical
absolutes are not dependent upon [do not imply] God; just because
logical absolutes exist does not mean that God must also exist.
(A) produces an unchoosable fork of [1A] vs [1B] (unchoosable to any
person whose agenda is to prove God rather than seek truth)
Please tell me if I got something wrong here.
Also, there is no reason to think that a self-contradictory thing
could possibly exist, simply because no evidence has ever been
presented for such a thing. Ignoring the irrationality of a
contradiction, there has still been zero observation and zero
demonstration of an existent contradiction. So if you make just one
assumption in your argument that "God can have self-contradictory
qualities", you will automatically receive the criticism and disbelief
of every person who understands logic.
And if you think that contradictions can exist because some
scientists claimed to have observed them at the subatomic level, then
you are abandoning both logic and science in one fell swoop. Science
is a process which accepts the validity of and uses the law of non-
contradiction in order to attempt to demonstrate and prove a
hypothesis. Is your hypothesis your hypothesis? Is your hypothesis
anything other than your hypothesis? When you marked down the number
42 as an observation result, did you mean 42, or did you mean
something other than 42? Do your observations flow rationally from
your hypothesis into your conclusion, or can they flow any haphazard
way they want to, without having to be tied together rationally? If a
process [science] holds non-contradiction at its core, but is
allegedly used to prove the existence of contradiction, then this
process is being used to discredit its own core foundation, and any
such result automatically becomes false because it invalidates the
process of certainty which supposedly led up to it. I think I smell a
rat. Or a cat?
Victor Eijkhout
> (1) Logical absolutes exist.
> (2) Logical absolutes are transcendent: not dependent on space, time,
> thought, etc. They are not the product of the physical universe
> (atoms, motion, heat, etc.), because if the physical universe were to
> disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
> (3) Therefore, logical absolutes are concepts by nature that only a
> transcendent, absolute, perfect mind could have authored. This entity
> is named God.
If they were authored, then there has to be a state, perhaps only
conceivably, where they don't exist. But in your point 2 you state that
they hold regardless of anything outside themselves.
And your god vanishes in a puff of logic.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Garamond Lethe
I think that was the OP's point (although the formatting of the post
obscures this). If you read it again, you'll see that the above is the
argument he's trying to refute, with the bulk of the post providing the
refutation.
I didn't find his refutation convincing, but that's a conversation for
alt.atheism.
> Victor.
Dakota
> Tenko<ten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (1) Logical absolutes exist.
>> (2) Logical absolutes are transcendent: not dependent on space, time,
>> thought, etc. They are not the product of the physical universe
>> (atoms, motion, heat, etc.), because if the physical universe were to
>> disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
>> (3) Therefore, logical absolutes are concepts by nature that only a
>> transcendent, absolute, perfect mind could have authored. This entity
>> is named God.
>
universe, and, as there is no evidence demonstrating otherwise, premise
(2) is untrue and the conclusion is unsupported. The conclusion also
makes claims regarding a 'perfect mind' that are unsupported even if the
premises were valid.
That being said, I really don't have much of a problem with naming the
author of our universe's logical absolutes God. Good job, God. Thanks a
lot for the logical absolutes. Bye now.
The problems crop up when theists use the same name for dozens of other
things.
There is a creator of the universe. This entity is named God.
There is an author of absolute morality. This entity is named God.
There is an entity that will judge us when we die. This entity is named God.
Etc.
Aquinas used the same nonsense in his 'proofs.' He lists several
unrelated attributes and claims all must have been accomplished by the
same entity that he names God.
Let's just agree to call the author of logical absolutes God and
restrict that name to logical absolutes authorship only and assign a
different name to each the other claimed properties.
Burkhard
Was there a need for creation?
That was hidden in a math equation
And that's this:
WHERE DO CIRCLES BEGIN?
Burkhard
> On Mon 11/15/10 10:36, Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>> Tenko<ten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (1) Logical absolutes exist.
>>> (2) Logical absolutes are transcendent: not dependent on space, time,
>>> thought, etc. They are not the product of the physical universe
>>> (atoms, motion, heat, etc.), because if the physical universe were to
>>> disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
>>> (3) Therefore, logical absolutes are concepts by nature that only a
>>> transcendent, absolute, perfect mind could have authored. This entity
>>> is named God.
>>
> What we consider to be logical absolutes may be valid only within our
> universe, and, as there is no evidence demonstrating otherwise, premise
> (2) is untrue and the conclusion is unsupported.
Mhh, tricky. One definition of logical or necessary truth is "true in
all possible worlds". Certain types of platonists, like Penelope Maddy
might argue that mathematical truths are absolute _and_ the result of
the universe as it is, but I'd say that is an unusual position to take.
The conclusion also
> makes claims regarding a 'perfect mind' that are unsupported even if the
> premises were valid.
>
> That being said, I really don't have much of a problem with naming the
> author of our universe's logical absolutes God. Good job, God. Thanks a
> lot for the logical absolutes. Bye now.
God is a principal ultrafilter ;o)
>
> The problems crop up when theists use the same name for dozens of other
> things.
>
> There is a creator of the universe. This entity is named God.
>
> There is an author of absolute morality. This entity is named God.
>
> There is an entity that will judge us when we die. This entity is named
> God.
>
> Etc.
>
> Aquinas used the same nonsense in his 'proofs.' He lists several
> unrelated attributes and claims all must have been accomplished by the
> same entity that he names God.
Do you mean Anselm? The transcendental argument seems closer to his
ontological argument. You could make the argument that Aquinas' five
proofs could as well be valid in a universe with five gods (interesting
idea, actually..)but the properties in question are so closely related
that I'd cut him some slack on this.
With ontological arguments, it is indeed one problem that you can use
them to generate lots and lots of deities rather than one, Goedel's
proof is also not a uniqueness proof.
Dakota
mover' be the 'first cause." They may be closely related but they are
clearly different. Yet Aquinas gives them the same name. His remaining
proofs continue along that line of reasoning.
Earle Jones
<37fefb87-6577-457e...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Tenko <ten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Debunk by Tenko
>
> Matt Slick's Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
> as quoted by:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God
>
> (1) Logical absolutes exist.
> (2) Logical absolutes are transcendent: not dependent on space, time,
> thought, etc. They are not the product of the physical universe
> (atoms, motion, heat, etc.), because if the physical universe were to
> disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
> (3) Therefore, logical absolutes are concepts by nature that only a
> transcendent, absolute, perfect mind could have authored. This entity
> is named God....
*
And if you don't fall down on your knees and worship him he will rain
down some iniquity on you and your children and their children and you
will all burn in the fiery fires of hell of Jesus Christ damnation!
Shape up, you sinners! God damn it!
earle
*
Kalkidas
"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ibrslv$ttq$1...@news.albasani.net...
They begin at the center of course. After all, a point is just a degenerate
circle.
Kalkidas
"Tenko" <ten...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37fefb87-6577-457e...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
Apologetics don't accomplish much except to strengthen the conviction of the
apologist, who is already convinced by experience anyway.
I doubt there ever was an atheist whose worldview was changed simply by
hearing a formal argument for God's existence. But perhaps there are some
undecided people who are swayed slightly.
The real way to know God is to surrender to Him. Otherwise, there is only
dry speculation and apologetics.
Earle Jones
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
[...]
>
> Apologetics don't accomplish much except to strengthen the conviction of the
> apologist, who is already convinced by experience anyway.
>
> I doubt there ever was an atheist whose worldview was changed simply by
> hearing a formal argument for God's existence. But perhaps there are some
> undecided people who are swayed slightly.
>
> The real way to know God is to surrender to Him. Otherwise, there is only
> dry speculation and apologetics.
*
But how does one go about it? How do I, if I so chose, "surrender to
Him"? I can verbalize all sorts of stuff, but if He is so all knowing
and all powerful, he must know that I don't believe a word of it.
Please tell me: In your opinion what exactly should I do?
How does one *decide* what to believe? This is my real question.
earle
*
Robert Camp
> "Tenko" <ten...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:37fefb87-6577-457e...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Debunk by Tenko
>
> > Matt Slick's Transcendental Argument for the existence of God
> > as quoted by:
So which God should I surrender myself up to, Vishnu, Yahweh, Jesus,
Mary, Mohammed, Marduk, Atum, Ptah, El, Kamuy, Izanagi, Mbombo,
Nanabozho, Unkulunkulu, Ranginui, Coatlique, Viracocha, Raven, Rod?
You, no doubt, will say that there is only one god. Followers of other
philosophies will of course agree with that sentiment, if not the
specifics that determine to which "one god" each of you refers. And
those specifics matter, you cite them all of the time as support for
your perspective (as do Christians, Muslims etc.).
The point is that you, as well as any individual follower of any other
religion, have rejected many, many gods. I have no idea what heuristic
you used to weed out the dross deities in order to reveal your one
true god, but I dare say it wasn't by way of surrendering yourself to
each and every one of them first. If not then you likely relied upon
some (if only rudimentary) process of collection and comparison of
evidence.
I congratulate you on having, if only impartially, applied my
preferred method, and would just ask you to stop being disingenuous
about "the real way" to know any god.
RLC
Burkhard
Nah, he is a henotheist and accepts them as minor deities. Upsetting,
I cherish my status as the only non-atheist on TO, but he is cheating
of course.
Robert Camp
Sure, they may not be good enough to play on his football side, but
"how does he know without giving the a tryout?" was my larger point.
> Upsetting, I cherish my status as the only non-atheist on TO,
Sort of like betting on both red and black, eh? Nothing to win, or
lose. Hmmm...it's almost as if you're not taking the game seriously.
RLC
Burkhard
Just commitment issues :o)
Tenko
> Apologetics don't accomplish much except to strengthen the conviction of the
> apologist, who is already convinced by experience anyway.
>
> I doubt there ever was an atheist whose worldview was changed simply by
> hearing a formal argument for God's existence. But perhaps there are some
> undecided people who are swayed slightly.
>
> The real way to know God is to surrender to Him. Otherwise, there is only
> dry speculation and apologetics.
What I would say to that is this...
If knowledge is dependant upon surrendering to an authority and
worshipping that authority, then why don't we apply this standard to
every other piece of knowledge? Why only God? Schools should be filled
with idols to worship, so that knowledge can be obtained. Where is the
Messiah of Math? The Prophet of PE? The Saint of Science? And why must
everyone study hard, achieving their own rewards from their own
effort, instead of having knowledge instantly implanted into their
heads after they surrender?
Also, look at it this way. You're approaching atheists agnostics and
deists with an argument that says 'surrender to my God and then you
will find the evidence for His existence'. The problem here is that
people of rational minds, people who support science, do not believe
in things that are not tested and repeatedly demonstrated. Asking them
to 'surrender and wait for the knowledge to flow forth' is literally
the same thing as asking them to 'give up rationality and have faith
like us.'
Tenko
> And if you don't fall down on your knees and worship him he will rain
> down some iniquity on you and your children and their children and you
> will all burn in the fiery fires of hell of Jesus Christ damnation!
>
> Shape up, you sinners! God damn it!
>
> earle
> *
So your God, being omnipotent and omniscient, would beat me up, a mere
puny mortal, and throw all my children and their children into hell?
Isn't that like pouring boiling water onto an anthill? How courageous
is your God if He spends His time smiting tiny ants which could never
possibly harm Him?
And God requires my worship and praise? God needs me to constantly
tell him how good He is? Could you tell me exactly how insecure God
is? Because I had the impression that God was supposedly perfect.
Also, God will be murdering little children in order to try and get
revenge on me? Could you tell me exactly how just God is? Because it's
looking to me like God is willing to punish innocent people (children)
for the non-crimes of other people.
From the way you describe your God, He is a cowardly insecure unjust
bully. Even if your God is real, why would I want to worship Him? He
seems like the exact opposite of good - evil. I don't care if your God
exists and is threatening to throw me into hell, because I would never
want to be anywhere near your God anyway, nor would I ever want to
worship anything like that.
If you read all of these questions and reply only with "God is a
courageous secure just diety" without refuting the points I have made
here, then you won't be arguing anything and I'll just ignore it. XD
Tenko
>
> Was there a need for creation?
> That was hidden in a math equation
> And that's this:
> WHERE DO CIRCLES BEGIN?
I've also thought about that a bit.
People love to use the argument "everything that exists must have a
cause", but they don't realize that this sentence implies an infinite
chain of creators (infinite turtles, etc). Some apologists like to say
that "we know that we were created because, everything that exists
must have a cause. But since there can't be an infinite chain of
creators, it must end with the uncaused God-creator."
And to that I would say many things. First and most obvious, is that
the first sentence says "everything must have a cause" but the second
sentence says that at least one thing must not have a cause.
Immediately this kind of argument self-detonates in this fashion. If
we are to accept that at least one thing can be uncaused, then we have
no more reason to believe with certainty that we were created.
Furthermore, who could possibly know whether or not God is uncaused?
Why is it that there are only two levels to reality (us, and God),
rather than multiple cause-levels? And if there are multiple cause-
levels, then how can you be so sure that the chain of causation begins
at He who created us? What if our creator is a person who lives in a
culture which worships another creator-diety which threatens all
infidels (including us) with eternal damnation?
I suppose the most unbelievable fact of the matter, to atheists, is
the fact that something had to have come from nothing (or had to have
been uncaused). And unfathomable as it is, there still cannot be an
infinite chain of causation, so there must be something that was not
caused, etc. However, picking a God and going with it is no way to
obtain truth - it's just a guess. A guess flavored by your personal
preference and wishful thinking. Without demonstrable evidence you
cannot know -for sure- the qualities of the creator, or if there even
is a creator.
Tenko
> What we consider to be logical absolutes may be valid only within our
> universe, and, as there is no evidence demonstrating otherwise, premise
> (2) is untrue and the conclusion is unsupported. The conclusion also
> makes claims regarding a 'perfect mind' that are unsupported even if the
> premises were valid.
I realize you're debunking TAG and I like the rest of your argument,
but I still have problems with the "it may be possible in another
universe" counterargument.
If this other universe has no nexus with our own universe, then the
other universe is the same as non-existence, as far as we are
concerned, and any rules within this other universe would never even
be considered applicable to our own, nor would they ever be used as a
counterargument in this universe, nor would any knowledge of this
other universe even be possible for us.
If this other universe has a nexus with our own universe, then the two
places are both located within the same universe, and that means there
would be a need for a theory which unifies our laws of physics with
the hypothetical inverse laws of the other connected universe, or a
theory which allows both to interact without annihilating each other,
etc, and then there would need to be a test to demonstrate that
theory, before anyone would have a reason to use it in an argument.
Just like how Christians need to prove the validity of the Bible
before they can start using biblical quotes as logical arguments for
God's existence, we should also have to prove the existence
(extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims) of this hypothetical
inverse universe before we can start using it as a logical argument
for anything. Also, if this other universe is just another part of our
own universe, it's far more likely that the laws of physics which
govern matter in our corner also govern the matter in the far-off
corner (reason why they're called laws, etc). Does gravity work
differently on Pluto? In Andromeda galaxy? etc.
The long and short of that is, who cares if it's possible in another
universe?
Eric Root
Why would this b peculiar to Christians? Anybody should have to prove
the validity of the Bible before
using quotes to prove anything.
> we should also have to prove the existence
> (extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims) of this hypothetical
> inverse universe before we can start using it as a logical argument
> for anything. Also, if this other universe is just another part of our
> own universe, it's far more likely that the laws of physics which
> govern matter in our corner also govern the matter in the far-off
> corner (reason why they're called laws, etc). Does gravity work
> differently on Pluto? In Andromeda galaxy? etc.
>
> The long and short of that is, who cares if it's possible in another
> universe?
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
> > And if you don't fall down on your knees and worship him he will rain
> > down some iniquity on you and your children and their children and you
> > will all burn in the fiery fires of hell of Jesus Christ damnation!
>
> > Shape up, you sinners! God damn it!
>
> > earle
> > *
>
> So your God, being omnipotent and omniscient, would beat me up, a mere
> puny mortal, and throw all my children and their children into hell?
> Isn't that like pouring boiling water onto an anthill? How courageous
> is your God if He spends His time smiting tiny ants which could never
> possibly harm Him?
>
> And God requires my worship and praise? God needs me to constantly
> tell him how good He is? Could you tell me exactly how insecure God
> is? Because I had the impression that God was supposedly perfect.
>
> Also, God will be murdering little children in order to try and get
> revenge on me? Could you tell me exactly how just God is? Because it's
> looking to me like God is willing to punish innocent people (children)
> for the non-crimes of other people.
>
> From the way you describe your God,
He wasn't describing his god.
Kalkidas
> On Nov 16, 10:26 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> Apologetics don't accomplish much except to strengthen the conviction of
>> the
>> apologist, who is already convinced by experience anyway.
>>
>> I doubt there ever was an atheist whose worldview was changed simply by
>> hearing a formal argument for God's existence. But perhaps there are some
>> undecided people who are swayed slightly.
>>
>> The real way to know God is to surrender to Him. Otherwise, there is only
>> dry speculation and apologetics.
>
> What I would say to that is this...
>
> If knowledge is dependant upon surrendering to an authority and
> worshipping that authority, then why don't we apply this standard to
> every other piece of knowledge?
True. One must surrender to and please one's teacher(s) if one is to succeed
in any field.
>Why only God? Schools should be filled
> with idols to worship, so that knowledge can be obtained.
I'm talking about persons, not idols.
>Where is the
> Messiah of Math?
Your math professor.
>The Prophet of PE?
Your coach.
>The Saint of Science?
The science faculty.
>And why must
> everyone study hard, achieving their own rewards from their own
> effort, instead of having knowledge instantly implanted into their
> heads after they surrender?
What "instant implantation"? I never used that concept. You get what you
work for. But you get it from someone else, so your work has to please that
person. Otherwise, you're just a foolish ingrate, a fourth-rate wannabe.
Like Rajneesh, or Jim Jones, or Dawkins, or Hitchens.
> Also, look at it this way. You're approaching atheists agnostics and
> deists with an argument that says 'surrender to my God and then you
> will find the evidence for His existence'. The problem here is that
> people of rational minds, people who support science, do not believe
> in things that are not tested and repeatedly demonstrated. Asking them
> to 'surrender and wait for the knowledge to flow forth' is literally
> the same thing as asking them to 'give up rationality and have faith
> like us.'
You have me confused with someone else. I haven't asked anyone to do
anything. But if those "atheists, agnostics and deists" don't surrender to
God, they will never know Him. After all, they don't know Him now, do they?
And They haven't surrendered to Him either, have they?
Leave it to the atheists to misunderstand such a simple concept as "if you
want to get to know someone you have to do it on their terms".
If you work for a living, as most of us do, you should understand that if
you don't submit to and please your boss or your clients, you won't get
paid. Why should that concept be any different when the "boss" or the
"client" is God?
deadrat
But the same can be said for the FSM.
> Leave it to the atheists to misunderstand such a simple concept as "if you
> want to get to know someone you have to do it on their terms".
Assuming this is true, it's true only for human beings.
> If you work for a living, as most of us do, you should understand that if
> you don't submit to and please your boss or your clients, you won't get
> paid. Why should that concept be any different when the "boss" or the
> "client" is God?
Because my boss actually exists? Because my boss isn't divine?
Tenko
>
> Why would this b peculiar to Christians? Anybody should have to prove
> the validity of the Bible before
> using quotes to prove anything.
I was just making an analogy to support my point about using the other
universe in arguments. I wasn't accusing only christianity, just used
their viewpoint to point out the similarity between the 'other
universe' argument and the 'Bible says it' argument. I think every
kind of 'holy book' is filled with lies / mistakes and/or slavery /
control methods, etc. And you're right, anyone should have to prove
the validity of any holy book (or prove the validity of any statement
made in any book at all for that matter) before they can use it as a
source of truth/evidence in an argument.
Tenko
> > If knowledge is dependant upon surrendering to an authority and
> > worshipping that authority, then why don't we apply this standard to
> > every other piece of knowledge?
>
> True. One must surrender to and please one's teacher(s) if one is to succeed
> in any field.
The road to knowledge is paved by the pleasure of a teacher and by his
domination of the student? In no way does the process of real learning
(in schools / colleges) match up with the 'surrender strategy' of
learning. My point was to show you that learning can occur (with
greater efficiency) through voluntary exchanges and rationality,
rather than though mandatory domination and faith, but you attempted
to say that theistic learning is the same as a school science class,
and it's not. XD
Official locations (schools, colleges, etc) are also not the only way
to obtain knowledge. Knowledge can be obtained without even requiring
a teacher. For example, if Bob realizes that a God with self-
contradictory qualities could never possibly exist, then Bob just
gained knowledge without having to surrender himself to any authority.
> >Why only God? Schools should be filled
> > with idols to worship, so that knowledge can be obtained.
>
> I'm talking about persons, not idols.
But why only apply this method of learning to God? Our science
teachers don't threaten us with eternal damnation if we do not take
what they say on faith. No other method of obtaining knowledge works
like the one you describe. To suggest that harvard should start
requiring faith-based surrendering to scientific knowledge would be to
horrifically confuse science and education with theism and sunday
school. If you went into a business negotiation and your rival wanted
assurances that an aspect of the project will go smoothly, saying to
your rival "just surrender to me and have faith and then the knowledge
of assurance will come to you" will not help you land the sale.
> >Where is the
> > Messiah of Math?
>
> Your math professor.
>
> >The Prophet of PE?
>
> Your coach.
>
> >The Saint of Science?
>
> The science faculty.
These people do not ask or demand faith/surrendering from their
students - they demonstrate why their teachings are correct, so that
the students can build the ideas in their heads.
> >And why must
> > everyone study hard, achieving their own rewards from their own
> > effort, instead of having knowledge instantly implanted into their
> > heads after they surrender?
>
> What "instant implantation"? I never used that concept. You get what you
> work for. But you get it from someone else, so your work has to please that
> person. Otherwise, you're just a foolish ingrate, a fourth-rate wannabe.
> Like Rajneesh, or Jim Jones, or Dawkins, or Hitchens.
How else would the knowledge arrive, if the process of obtaining
knowledge of God involves no rational thought, but rather only
surrendering and faith? It implies that God will be responsible for
building the knowledge into your brain. Instant implantation, in the
sense that you require no effort, no study, and no testing to obtain
the knowledge.
We don't just think that the Christian God cannot exist simply because
Christopher Hitchens said so. We don't use the "appeal to authority"
fallacy like Christians do (if God says so, it is true, etc). Please
don't confuse science and rationality with religion. The difference
between the two are night and day. One big reason why most of us
disbelieve in all Gods is because every God that we have ever heard of
has at least one self-contradictory property and thus cannot possibly
exist. When Dawkins or Hitchens points this out to us, we consider the
idea rationally in order to come to our conclusion about what was
claimed. When a priest says that God has self-contradictory
properties, he tells you to have faith and to not try to rationally
analyze it.
> > Also, look at it this way. You're approaching atheists agnostics and
> > deists with an argument that says 'surrender to my God and then you
> > will find the evidence for His existence'. The problem here is that
> > people of rational minds, people who support science, do not believe
> > in things that are not tested and repeatedly demonstrated. Asking them
> > to 'surrender and wait for the knowledge to flow forth' is literally
> > the same thing as asking them to 'give up rationality and have faith
> > like us.'
>
> You have me confused with someone else. I haven't asked anyone to do
> anything. But if those "atheists, agnostics and deists" don't surrender to
> God, they will never know Him. After all, they don't know Him now, do they?
> And They haven't surrendered to Him either, have they?
Well you did post here and you did suggest in your post that the way
to knowledge of God was surrendering and faith. And that is the
equivalent of asking an atheist to drop rationality and adopt faith
instead.
Rational people do know some things about the alleged God - the things
that people like you claim. Omnipotence. Omniscience. Starting from
this point, once self-contradictory qualities are discovered, an
atheist already knows enough (with 100% certainty) to toss the idea of
this particular God into the garbage can.
> Leave it to the atheists to misunderstand such a simple concept as "if you
> want to get to know someone you have to do it on their terms".
You can observe Bob from afar to discover that Bob exists; that Bob
eats tacos; that Bob breathes; that Bob casts a shadow. You don't have
to get to know Bob before you can realize knowledge of Bob's
existence. If God interferes with the universe and performs miracles
or talks to people or does anything at all, then God's effect on the
universe (the changes made by God's intrusion) are measurable,
demonstrable parts of this world. That means they are testable.
Knowledge can come from observing the actions of the God, by
demonstrating His presence objectively.
Hypothetically assuming God gives knowledge upon surrender... it
certainly wouldn't be possible to know God if God can never intrude
into this universe to give you the knowledge after you surrender to
Him, right? So if God must intrude to implant this knowledge into your
head, then that already means that God is testable by various other
means (brain scans, etc), and therefore surrendering to God would NOT
be the only way to gain knowledge of God.
> If you work for a living, as most of us do, you should understand that if
> you don't submit to and please your boss or your clients, you won't get
> paid. Why should that concept be any different when the "boss" or the
> "client" is God?
Working is different from learning. But we can go this road, too. XD
In the work environment, there is no surrendering of will, no
mandatory faith, no punishment beyond secular means, and the entire
experience is 100% voluntary.
In the church environment, there is surrendering of will, mandatory
faith, eternal punishment, and the experience is 100% mandatory
(ordered by God).
The work environment is radically different from the church
environment. The boss never claims to be God, nor does the boss ever
demand any level of obedience or faith anywhere near the level which
God demands. You aren't commanded to be there at your job, lest you
suffer (a threat, one-way benefit). You go to your job because you
have decided that the money you are paid is worth more than the time
that you spend working (incentive, voluntarism, mutual benefit).
Kalkidas
> On Nov 21, 11:32 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> > If knowledge is dependant upon surrendering to an authority and
>> > worshipping that authority, then why don't we apply this standard to
>> > every other piece of knowledge?
>>
>> True. One must surrender to and please one's teacher(s) if one is to
>> succeed
>> in any field.
>
> The road to knowledge is paved by the pleasure of a teacher and by his
> domination of the student?
Yes. If you have never pleased a teacher by submitting to his instruction,
you have learned nothing of value, and your so-called "knowledge" will fail
you if it is ever put to any real test. There are many dilletantes who are
expert at appearing learned, but even more expert at avoiding situations
where their bluff will be called. That is the way of the third-raters.
In no way does the process of real learning
> (in schools / colleges) match up with the 'surrender strategy' of
> learning. My point was to show you that learning can occur (with
> greater efficiency) through voluntary exchanges and rationality,
> rather than though mandatory domination and faith, but you attempted
> to say that theistic learning is the same as a school science class,
> and it's not. XD
>
> Official locations (schools, colleges, etc) are also not the only way
> to obtain knowledge. Knowledge can be obtained without even requiring
> a teacher. For example, if Bob realizes that a God with self-
> contradictory qualities could never possibly exist, then Bob just
> gained knowledge without having to surrender himself to any authority.
Bob never surrendered himself to any authority, which is why he foolishly
imagines that he has learned anything by refuting a concept that no one
holds in the first place. If he had surrendered himself to a bona fide
spiritual teacher, he would have learned something of real value, such as
the fact that God does not possess self-contradictory qualities.
>> >Why only God? Schools should be filled
>> > with idols to worship, so that knowledge can be obtained.
>>
>> I'm talking about persons, not idols.
>
> But why only apply this method of learning to God? Our science
> teachers don't threaten us with eternal damnation if we do not take
> what they say on faith.
Neither does God, nor any bona fide spiritual teacher.
>No other method of obtaining knowledge works
> like the one you describe. To suggest that harvard should start
> requiring faith-based surrendering to scientific knowledge would be to
> horrifically confuse science and education with theism and sunday
> school.
You're living in a dream world if you think that one can get through Harvard
without submitting to the authority of one's professors. And you're living
in a nightmare if you think one can know another person except on that
person's terms.
[snip more fantasies designed to save face]
Boikat
> "Tenko" <ten...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > What I would say to that is this...
>
> > If knowledge is dependant upon surrendering to an authority and
> > worshipping that authority, then why don't we apply this standard to
> > every other piece of knowledge?
>
> True. One must surrender to and please one's teacher(s) if one is to succeed
> in any field.
If it pleases your teacher for you to believe the world was flat,
you'd believe the world was flat, just to please your teacher? Are
you daft?
<snip>
>
> If you work for a living, as most of us do, you should understand that if
> you don't submit to and please your boss or your clients,
What if your boss asks you to touch his "naughty bits"?
<snip >
Boikat
Boikat
You're an idiot.
> And you're living
> in a nightmare if you think one can know another person except on that
> person's terms.
Is someone paying you to look this stupid?
>
> [snip more fantasies designed to save face]
You should have simply snipped everything you wrote..
Boikat