Fweethawt

Putting Faith In Its Place

22 posts in this topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



Great clip. Thanks for posting. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good one, but I see at 1:51 the claim that logic alone can "refute impossible beings" such as "a perfect being that needs to be worshipped". 

I've used this argument myself, but it occurs to me that our definition of 'perfect' may not be true. IF there was a being that defined and created perfection, and part of that perfection includes the need to be worshipped, who would we be to say otherwise? 

 

Also it posits that an all loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony is logically impossible. I wouldn't presume to justify love allowing agony, but it seems to me an omnipotent being could find a way to if there was a reason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good one, but I see at 1:51 the claim that logic alone can "refute impossible beings" such as "a perfect being that needs to be worshipped". 

I've used this argument myself, but it occurs to me that our definition of 'perfect' may not be true. IF there was a being that defined and created perfection, and part of that perfection includes the need to be worshipped, who would we be to say otherwise? 

 

Also it posits that an all loving omnipotent being that allows eternal agony is logically impossible. I wouldn't presume to justify love allowing agony, but it seems to me an omnipotent being could find a way to if there was a reason.

Hi Dude, I too have often thought about these, shall we say, modal arguments. I.e. the Christian apologist says, But if there is an (x) of which P is true, then Q is true - and we really want Q to be true!

 

so, IF there is/was a being that defined and create perfection, and part of that perfection includes the need to be worshiped, then does it follow that there is such a perfect being and it needs to be worshiped?

 

Short reply from ficino: I say crap. Crap, I say, just like Big Daddy. (Big Momma in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof)

 

Less short reply: a perfect being does not need anything. By definition. By common usage of language. So if the apologist posits a perfect being that needs something, according to a definition of "perfect" that is itself set by that hypothetical perfect being, then the Christian apologist is sliding into a private language. Since a private language annihilates all rational discourse, the discussion must end. So for the apologist in the eyes of any rational person: Fail.

 

I don't think any of these "If P, then Q, ... blah blah Therefore Yahweh" arguments hold any water.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ficino, I don't really get the (x) P = qwerty stuff.  I wonder if our common use of language is able to define perfection though, since no one that uses our common language has ever seen or  experienced perfection beyond their own subjective definition.

 

Who among us is qualified to define what perfection is or what, if anything, perfection needs? Do we believe that perfection exists in a vacuum? What if perfection is composed of its various bits, and worship is one of those bits? It seems that an omnipotent being could create what it needs to sustain itself, right? 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ficino, I don't really get the (x) P = qwerty stuff.  I wonder if our common use of language is able to define perfection though, since no one that uses our common language has ever seen or  experienced perfection beyond their own subjective definition.

 

Who among us is qualified to define what perfection is or what, if anything, perfection needs? Do we believe that perfection exists in a vacuum? What if perfection is composed of its various bits, and worship is one of those bits? It seems that an omnipotent being could create what it needs to sustain itself, right? 

Just off the top of my head, I'd say that perfection is not a thing in itself. It's just a property of things that satisfy some definition or meet a standard of completeness. Some things are by definition perfect. A perfect circle is really just a circle, since a figure, all of whose points are continuous but not equidistant from a central point, is not a circle. For other things, we might have a rough idea of completeness based in reality above our tastes: e.g. a perfect oak tree would be an adult oak tree that can nourish and reproduce itself. But one oak tree might look more beautiful to an artist than another one does, so the artist might say the first is a perfect oak tree and the second is defective. But perhaps the botanist would say both are perfect. Or maybe only Aristotelian botanists would say that!

 

You can see that my thoughts are pretty imperfect on this.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"perfect" means not lacking anything, not having any need - it has nothing to do with aesthetics, etc.

 

A circle by definition is perfect, as you said, because it meets all the definitions of a circle. There is no "need" to change any point along its arc to an equidistant location relative to the center, etc.

 

"Need" for "worship" means that this being would NEED something EXTRINSIC to itself in order to be perfect. That is the definition of imperfection, because IF there is worship, there is perfection. If there is no worship, logically there can be no perfection. Therefore, a being who is worshiped by some and not by others cannot exist, because the being cannot be perfect and needful simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video sums up a lot of my problems with Christianity (particularly evangelical), and other religions to a lesser extent, in a very concise manner that I often find it hard to articulate. It's too bad that I know all of this would fall on deaf ears if I presented it to anyone in the church. And my wife wonders why I never talk in group anymore. No one would understand. They'd only pray for God to "make things clear," with the stipulation that it led me back to Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good vid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect god who can't drive out iron chariots doesn't need worship. It needs better weaponry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect God doesn't need weaponry full-stop. 

 

A perfect God would have foreseen all that was, and because it was perfect it would have prevented all ills - including the need for weapons.

 

PS hows this for a definition of faith:

 

faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"perfect" means not lacking anything, not having any need - it has nothing to do with aesthetics, etc.

 

A circle by definition is perfect, as you said, because it meets all the definitions of a circle. There is no "need" to change any point along its arc to an equidistant location relative to the center, etc.

 

"Need" for "worship" means that this being would NEED something EXTRINSIC to itself in order to be perfect. That is the definition of imperfection, because IF there is worship, there is perfection. If there is no worship, logically there can be no perfection. Therefore, a being who is worshiped by some and not by others cannot exist, because the being cannot be perfect and needful simultaneously.

 

But what if the being that needs worship in order to be perfect creates other beings that worship it? What if the definition of 'perfect' isn't what we say it is? What if, for the sake of argument (allowing that this is Ex-C) the Christian God has always been perfect because he always had beings in existence that worshipped him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect god who can't drive out iron chariots doesn't need worship. It needs better weaponry.

 

Or a new tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect God doesn't need weaponry full-stop. 

 

A perfect God would have foreseen all that was, and because it was perfect it would have prevented all ills - including the need for weapons.

 

PS hows this for a definition of faith:

 

faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

 

How do we know that a perfect God doesn't need weaponry?  Having never been a perfect God myself (damn close, though) I wouldn't know.

 

A perfect God might have foreseen all that was, but that doesn't preclude that such a perfect God would intervene to change that which needed no change. Maybe the lesson that better weaponry is needed in the face of a determined enemy is just what we in this future time are supposed to understand?  

According to the Bible, it wouldn't be the last time God sacrificed a little bit to teach the rest of us something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But what if the being that needs worship in order to be perfect creates other beings that worship it? What if the definition of 'perfect' isn't what we say it is? What if, for the sake of argument (allowing that this is Ex-C) the Christian God has always been perfect because he always had beings in existence that worshipped him?

 

The Christard bible says that everything else except its god was created. i.e. had a starting point of existence. Therefore, a god who requires worship to be perfect could not exist, because it could not have existed before there were beings to worship it.

 

The god could not have been imperfect for however long and then decided (or become able somehow) to create beings to worship it. If a god (by definition a superior, if not supreme being) could progress to a point where it needed something to make it perfect, and then create that something, the god certainly would not create something that is equally capable and incapable of worshiping it. A god with power to reach anything close to perfection would know not to create something so fickle and changeable as a human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect god who can't drive out iron chariots doesn't need worship. It needs better weaponry.

 

An A-10 Warthog could handle that. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude: Having never been a perfect God myself (damn close, though) I wouldn't know.

 

 

 

Dont sell yourself short, buddy. :) You are awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A perfect God doesn't need weaponry full-stop. 

 

A perfect God would have foreseen all that was, and because it was perfect it would have prevented all ills - including the need for weapons.

 

PS hows this for a definition of faith:

 

faith is multifaceted – and that while it incorporates many aspects of what we would term rational processes such as evidence and reason etc., it extends beyond. The real key is that Faith is a spiritual reality and experience that moves you from just believing the evidence to lifting you to a higher plane or realm - one beyond mere ‘existence’ and gives insight into what lies within and beyond the evidence.

 

How do we know that a perfect God doesn't need weaponry?  Having never been a perfect God myself (damn close, though) I wouldn't know.

 

A perfect God might have foreseen all that was, but that doesn't preclude that such a perfect God would intervene to change that which needed no change. Maybe the lesson that better weaponry is needed in the face of a determined enemy is just what we in this future time are supposed to understand?  

According to the Bible, it wouldn't be the last time God sacrificed a little bit to teach the rest of us something.

 

Its at this point we'd need to define "perfect"

 

I tend to use it for an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God.

 

I think any God that is not that is either not God or not worthy or deserving of worship.

 

The question here is could an all loving God create hell, allow suffering, punish people for crimes they didn't commit?

 

If you use the definition of perfect as whatever God does and says and is, is perfect then that perfectness is something that only benefits God. We come back to is a being that does everything only to glorify itself perfect? We call that narcissistic.... but we are mere humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if hate is perfection and we only believe love is because we're imperfect?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this comes down to IF God is all knowing, then surely said God would already have known of our discussion and assuming he did want to 'save' us he would have ensured that there was clear answers to our queries.... unless we are simply cannon fodder to him... which I can support that proposition with bible versus:

 

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Thessalonians 2:10-12

 

This is building on the concept in Isaiah 6:9-10

 

"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not."

"Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed"

 

 

So it's really unclear about the love/hate/blinding/deluding relationship we have with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just goofing off on this. You all know that, right? Thanks for all the replies. Midniterider, thanks for the kind words!

LF and TRP, good ideas. 

 

What shot me down in flames though, was this from L.B.  "The Christard bible says that everything else except its god was created. i.e. had a starting point of existence. Therefore, a god who requires worship to be perfect could not exist, because it could not have existed before there were beings to worship it."

 

I think that's a checkmate on his part. huh.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arthur C Clarke's Third Law states:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

When i was head deep in my religious life and love I HOPED as a nascent science nut and off world exploration fan that some god would allow us off planet. 
Was excoriated by fellow believers for espousing space exploration as "that could NEVER be GODS will" as he had given us this perfect planet. 

That in part was a tip towards exiting a system that had no idea what was in the cube, much less willing to go forth searching.

kL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now