It absolutely blows my mind that after more than forty blogs expressing coherently the position of the atheist, my wannabe pastor bro still doesn't get it. He thinks it's all about "false pride" - as opposed to an honest, direct intellectual questioning of the existential assumed basis (by believers ) for the way the cosmos plays out - especially in terms of natural and human-caused suffering.
In a way it makes sense that his puzzlement persists, because given his lack of adequate education to rigorously deal with the intellectual problems (posed by an Almighty, infinite God that does nothing) I guess I too would simply ascribe "false pride" to my opponents to try to end the debate with no real work of my own. But as we know that insinuates a logical fallacy, since no real argument is being presented - hence an ad hominem. (Which, btw, need not be referring to a specific, named person to be committed!)
Anyway he writes in one of his New Year's blogs:
"My friends , the biggest problem I feel the atheists have is FALSE PRIDE ! They think that unless they can "know" why God does all that He does , then He either "doesn't exist," or that He is a "mean , brutal tyrant." Which , of course , if they make the latter statement , then they are STILL acknowledging His EXISTENCE ! "
Again, not so! We merely assert that IF one proposes an entity purported to be infinite, all powerful and all knowing, he at least does us the honor of informing us why It chooses not to act when called upon. Those two Petit girls from Connecticut were evidently praying fervently for deliverance after two vicious brutes invaded their home and tied them to their bed before raping and torturing them, then setting them on fire.
They did nothing to deserve what befell them. So WHY didn't this putative all powerful and GOOD being answer their entreaties? Why can't this joke pastor just be honest for once and admit (like my friend John Phillips) that either:
Yes, the non-action is inexplicable in terms of the attributes assigned to this deity or,
Maybe those attributes are wrong, and the God that exists in isn't really all-powerful but partially powerful (for limited times) and not all knowing, so it could not have known those two girls' home would be invaded in time to save them!
But he refuses to be honest! Instead he fobs off on us his duties and accuses us of "false pride" merely because we have the temerity to demand answers rather than pap and sophistry.
As for calling the deity a "tyrant" - no, why would we? What we are in fact doing (again we must go very slow at the rate his brain neurons can process information) is showing that the god-concept espoused is tyrannical if it allows or enables such things as mass genocides, or that a son be slaughtered for simple insolence to parents, or children be slaughtered by she bears for calling a guy 'baldy'. Thus, the concept - which in the end must be HUMAN-invented, is what's tyrannical.
In other words, all we are really doing is showing the OT character is just that - a HUMAN confection - manufactured by vicious human brains. It refers to NO real entity!
How many times must we repeat that?
He goes on:
"If they make the former statement , then they are unequivocally stating that there "is NO God," which makes their claim of "lacking/withholding belief" in Him null and void !"
Again, NO NO NO NO and NOOOOOOO!
How many times must we repeat this?
What we are saying is that the claimed CONSTRUCT - if its claimed attributes are not consistent with its expected ACTIONS, is not rational or consistent. The reason is simple: if an all powerful and all good entity is claimed to exist then we can logically expect there are actions it shows over time that coincide with this. If not, there is no good reason to believe it exists. Exactly the same would be the case if instead of the word "God" Mikey used the term "flying spaghetti monster". It doesn't matter what the word is, it's what the CLAIM declares.
We are therefore attacking and questioning the CLAIM for such a being, not that any such being exists now or ever. It is up to believers to provide us with the evidence for the claim instead of continually punking out.
He then rails on:
" They will never concede that our FINITE minds cannot EVER comprehend the INFINITE nature of God ( i.e., that God exists outside of and is NOT limited by time or space. ) Infinite simply means “without limits.” "
YOU HAVE IT WRONG AGAIN! Ass-backwards, in common parlance! We are saying that it is impossible for any FINITE mind to posit an "infinite" anything because it simply lacks the capacity to identify the infinite! (Note, even the universe is finite in this sense). Thus, the issue is NOT our lack of comprehension, but YOUR PROPOSAL!
It is your proposal of an infinite which is defective if you can't show its nature to be logically consistent with the claimed attributes. Since no mind is infinite, then no human mind can really know an infinite, hence can't make a claim for one!
Saying infinite is "without limits" means nothing because in other contexts you contradict that!
For example, IF it is truly "without limits" then it also means nothing else can co-exist in its Being or with its Being! If something else does co-exist, it means it must share that Being, hence is now limited - so can't be "without limits". Hence, a contradiction!
Now, if you then say "Hell" exists and is eternal, e.g. an eternal state of torment, then you are asserting (in effect) that another (presumably distinct) being from God can yet co-exist with his infinite state. But if it does share ONE existence, then God can't be infinite. Thus, either Hell can't exist, or God can't be without limits. You can't have BOTH God AND Hell existing for any eternity because it represents an inherent contradiction!
In other words, you really have no true idea of what it means when you say "without limits". You're making up words as you go along. (Unless you can carefully explain to us how Hell and God can co-exist within the same eternity if they are not one and the same)
And now he hoists himself again on his own petard:
"When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Heck , if we're honest , we will concede that oftentimes we don't even "know" why we OURSELVES do certain things - so how can we expect to "know" why God does what He does? "
Again, YOU are committing the logical fallacies here by attaching attributes, e.g. like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence which you haven't shown to be compatible with infinite as you've defined it. (See again the contradiction I exposed above).
Truth be told, these attributes are merely assigned out of intellectual laziness because some ancient philosopher scratched his butt and said: "Well, uh...let's see ...if I say God is infinite, I guess I can also assign all the possible attributes to the max. So if he's infinite he has infinite knowledge, so must be all knowing, if he has infinite power....all powerful and so on."
But such laziness doesn't pass muster as an intellectual test.
I can do the same thing for the flying spaghetti monster! That doesn't mean for a moment that an infinite flying spaghetti monster that possesses omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence actually exists! Talk is cheap and proof or at least n-s conditions must be provided!
In the end it's your job to explain to us:
1) How Hell can co-exist with a presumably infinite God that has "no limits"
2) How it is that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being can do nothing when his innocent followers are being abused, tortured, raped and burned alive.
When you get back to us, we will think of you more as possibly real, up and coming pastor material as opposed to a bloviating clown. Or a nincompoop - which handle will be assigned to you if we see one more reference to "false pride".
In a way it makes sense that his puzzlement persists, because given his lack of adequate education to rigorously deal with the intellectual problems (posed by an Almighty, infinite God that does nothing) I guess I too would simply ascribe "false pride" to my opponents to try to end the debate with no real work of my own. But as we know that insinuates a logical fallacy, since no real argument is being presented - hence an ad hominem. (Which, btw, need not be referring to a specific, named person to be committed!)
Anyway he writes in one of his New Year's blogs:
"My friends , the biggest problem I feel the atheists have is FALSE PRIDE ! They think that unless they can "know" why God does all that He does , then He either "doesn't exist," or that He is a "mean , brutal tyrant." Which , of course , if they make the latter statement , then they are STILL acknowledging His EXISTENCE ! "
Again, not so! We merely assert that IF one proposes an entity purported to be infinite, all powerful and all knowing, he at least does us the honor of informing us why It chooses not to act when called upon. Those two Petit girls from Connecticut were evidently praying fervently for deliverance after two vicious brutes invaded their home and tied them to their bed before raping and torturing them, then setting them on fire.
They did nothing to deserve what befell them. So WHY didn't this putative all powerful and GOOD being answer their entreaties? Why can't this joke pastor just be honest for once and admit (like my friend John Phillips) that either:
Yes, the non-action is inexplicable in terms of the attributes assigned to this deity or,
Maybe those attributes are wrong, and the God that exists in isn't really all-powerful but partially powerful (for limited times) and not all knowing, so it could not have known those two girls' home would be invaded in time to save them!
But he refuses to be honest! Instead he fobs off on us his duties and accuses us of "false pride" merely because we have the temerity to demand answers rather than pap and sophistry.
As for calling the deity a "tyrant" - no, why would we? What we are in fact doing (again we must go very slow at the rate his brain neurons can process information) is showing that the god-concept espoused is tyrannical if it allows or enables such things as mass genocides, or that a son be slaughtered for simple insolence to parents, or children be slaughtered by she bears for calling a guy 'baldy'. Thus, the concept - which in the end must be HUMAN-invented, is what's tyrannical.
In other words, all we are really doing is showing the OT character is just that - a HUMAN confection - manufactured by vicious human brains. It refers to NO real entity!
How many times must we repeat that?
He goes on:
"If they make the former statement , then they are unequivocally stating that there "is NO God," which makes their claim of "lacking/withholding belief" in Him null and void !"
Again, NO NO NO NO and NOOOOOOO!
How many times must we repeat this?
What we are saying is that the claimed CONSTRUCT - if its claimed attributes are not consistent with its expected ACTIONS, is not rational or consistent. The reason is simple: if an all powerful and all good entity is claimed to exist then we can logically expect there are actions it shows over time that coincide with this. If not, there is no good reason to believe it exists. Exactly the same would be the case if instead of the word "God" Mikey used the term "flying spaghetti monster". It doesn't matter what the word is, it's what the CLAIM declares.
We are therefore attacking and questioning the CLAIM for such a being, not that any such being exists now or ever. It is up to believers to provide us with the evidence for the claim instead of continually punking out.
He then rails on:
" They will never concede that our FINITE minds cannot EVER comprehend the INFINITE nature of God ( i.e., that God exists outside of and is NOT limited by time or space. ) Infinite simply means “without limits.” "
YOU HAVE IT WRONG AGAIN! Ass-backwards, in common parlance! We are saying that it is impossible for any FINITE mind to posit an "infinite" anything because it simply lacks the capacity to identify the infinite! (Note, even the universe is finite in this sense). Thus, the issue is NOT our lack of comprehension, but YOUR PROPOSAL!
It is your proposal of an infinite which is defective if you can't show its nature to be logically consistent with the claimed attributes. Since no mind is infinite, then no human mind can really know an infinite, hence can't make a claim for one!
Saying infinite is "without limits" means nothing because in other contexts you contradict that!
For example, IF it is truly "without limits" then it also means nothing else can co-exist in its Being or with its Being! If something else does co-exist, it means it must share that Being, hence is now limited - so can't be "without limits". Hence, a contradiction!
Now, if you then say "Hell" exists and is eternal, e.g. an eternal state of torment, then you are asserting (in effect) that another (presumably distinct) being from God can yet co-exist with his infinite state. But if it does share ONE existence, then God can't be infinite. Thus, either Hell can't exist, or God can't be without limits. You can't have BOTH God AND Hell existing for any eternity because it represents an inherent contradiction!
In other words, you really have no true idea of what it means when you say "without limits". You're making up words as you go along. (Unless you can carefully explain to us how Hell and God can co-exist within the same eternity if they are not one and the same)
And now he hoists himself again on his own petard:
"When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Heck , if we're honest , we will concede that oftentimes we don't even "know" why we OURSELVES do certain things - so how can we expect to "know" why God does what He does? "
Again, YOU are committing the logical fallacies here by attaching attributes, e.g. like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence which you haven't shown to be compatible with infinite as you've defined it. (See again the contradiction I exposed above).
Truth be told, these attributes are merely assigned out of intellectual laziness because some ancient philosopher scratched his butt and said: "Well, uh...let's see ...if I say God is infinite, I guess I can also assign all the possible attributes to the max. So if he's infinite he has infinite knowledge, so must be all knowing, if he has infinite power....all powerful and so on."
But such laziness doesn't pass muster as an intellectual test.
I can do the same thing for the flying spaghetti monster! That doesn't mean for a moment that an infinite flying spaghetti monster that possesses omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence actually exists! Talk is cheap and proof or at least n-s conditions must be provided!
In the end it's your job to explain to us:
1) How Hell can co-exist with a presumably infinite God that has "no limits"
2) How it is that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being can do nothing when his innocent followers are being abused, tortured, raped and burned alive.
When you get back to us, we will think of you more as possibly real, up and coming pastor material as opposed to a bloviating clown. Or a nincompoop - which handle will be assigned to you if we see one more reference to "false pride".
No comments:
Post a Comment