Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 59

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Who are we to question the gods?

    From time to time I see a religious argument made along these lines...

    "How can man, who has limited understanding possibly second guess the infinite wisdom of God?"

    It tends to come up whenever someone says an event in the bible is unjust or that something about the narrative or when there is a claim that a religious tenant is illogical or nonsensical. It is also implicit in statements like..

    "The lord works in mysterious ways."

    First Glance
    On the face of things, there is some logic behind this idea and it is straight forward.
    (1) Assuming we humans are flawed or limited creatures.
    (2) Assuming there is an omnipotent all wise God.
    (3) And assuming we know what God's will is on a given subject.
    If we dissagree with god on some point of fact, God is always going to be correct and we are always going to be incorrect.

    Asumptions making an Ass of You and Me
    It is in these three premices we run into some trouble.

    (1) Assuming we humans are flawed or limited creatures.

    Most of us are pretty on board with this assumption. We think therefore we are and we have ample evidince of our own limitations and flaws. That is not to say we don't have any merit. We are pretty clever and we figure out a lot of stuff, even if its often through trial and error. But when push comes to shove we've got a wealth of ignorance and a stupifying number of ways to be wrong about any given subject.

    (2) Assuming there is an omnipotent all wise God.

    And now it gets harder...

    There are actually two assertions here, one dependent on the other. 2a. God exists 2b. God is all wise and knowing etc...

    There are many claims of many different gods, often mutually exclusive to one another as they claim a singular and exclusive god with different traits. Typically in argument you face a particular person with a particular notion of God. Not evey god is credited with omniptence but even those not so much tend to be seen as at least a good deal wiser and smarter than men. You might even say the qualigy of godhood has to cary with it an intrinsic quality of superiority with most gods having ultimate supreme authority and wisdom. It would be hard to really seperate the two and would we consider a God that is stupider than us to even qualify as a deity? I think not.

    So really its mostly 2a. God exists we are working with. The lions share of religious claims come from tradition, either written or oral passed down through social structures. A few come from individual revelation, what you might call original source since all traditions have to come from somewhere. Finally you have the more modern tradition of rationalization of god, chiefly from appologists for a given faith. The notible exception being staunch philisophical deists.

    Now if we skip ahead just a bit, we can drop the Deists out of this discussion. They claim only a philisophical or logical proof for the existence of some kind of supreme god. Yet they don't ascribe to any particular rendition of this god or social tradition. They almost always see god as non-interventionist, remote, and for practical matters unknowable. This means they have no formulation of what God's sense of justice is or any other quality you could be debating about. Thus they would never make such statements as "You can't question God's judgement due to your limited mind." sine they really have no clue as to what God's judgement is in the first place. Since Diests make no claims about Gods nature these arguments just don't happen.

    So that leaves us those who come to knowledge of god by tradition and/or revilation. And here is the rub. Both of these are human sources of knowledge, and as we have established in item (1) humans are flawed and limited. Thus there will always be substantial doubt as to whether there is a god or not. Any argument put forth will be limited by human inteligence and understanding and prone to possible error. This becimes an even more serious issue as we move into #3.

    (3) And assuming we know what God's will is on a given subject.


    God's existence is something of a binary question, but God's will is multi dimensional. On a topic like "Justice" we are examining a whole host of ideas, formulations and principles. To know God's will we must not only acknowledge there is a God, but gain some measure of his understanding of a subject.

    This brings up not only the problem of source, that all knowledge of God's will comes from either humans making claims of direct revilation, or humans using social traditions that presumably were also from some kind of claim to revelation. It also brings up the problem of interpretation and comprehension. What claims we have of how God's will works are in human language and what truth they hold is understood by human minds. This makes such knowledge doubly subject to erorr. Basically, we could have just made it up, and even if its not made up we could have a very imperfect understanding of it.

    Bringing it all together

    So, here we are. We have one human making a possibly flawed claim about the will of a god vs another human making a possibly flawed claim about his own viewpoint.

    One human says its a good idea to kiss his hood ornament for good luck while another says that is worshiping a false idol and will get you sent to hell. The ornament guy things going to hell for kissing a hood ornament is rediculous and the religious man says "who are you to question god?"

    The religious person always has this base assumption that yes, he knows with certainty and without flaw there is a god, and yes he knows exactly the truth about what god thinks on a given subject. The non-religious person is pretty sure that religious guy can be just as flawed on all those points as he is about whether its a good idea to kiss your hood ornament for good luck.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Thank you, Sigfried, for that OP - it definitely raises a number of questions regarding the thought processes around, faith, morality, and other fairly heavy topics. Point 3 is especially something that many theists should think about. I wonder whether we have any presuppositionists here at ODN...

    Two small points I'd like to add are:

    (1) Granted, we humans are not perfect, and often hold viewpoints which are flawed. However, we will always have the ability to learn and improve the viewpoints we hold. Theism, on the other hand, only seems to be progressively losing its hold on certain claims about whatever specific deity, and it doesn't look like that lost ground will ever be reclaimed.

    (2) A reluctance to accept the assumptions leads us to look for a simpler explanation for the tenet of not questioning one's deity: The deity is man-made, and that tenet is intended to defend the integrity of the religion and its control over the masses by enforcing blind faith.
    Indeed, the question of "What purpose do a deity's characteristics serve?" starts to make a whole lot more sense when we recognise the very real possibility of the deity being man-made.
    Romans 9:20 - Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    (1) Granted, we humans are not perfect, and often hold viewpoints which are flawed. However, we will always have the ability to learn and improve the viewpoints we hold. Theism, on the other hand, only seems to be progressively losing its hold on certain claims about whatever specific deity, and it doesn't look like that lost ground will ever be reclaimed.
    Well, let me say, not all Theists are alike. There are some who genuinely have a lifelong quest to try and understand the God of their faith. They may have some baselines of tradition but they genuinely seek truth in that framework and often question that framework. It's one reason we have so many different versions of various religions. Without people striving to understand everything better, even God, we'd have religions that never change, and they do change quite a lot.

    That said, some have a kind of delusion that their faith has remained unaltered since God first revealed it or what have you and can't accept any notion that anything has ever changed or could in future. Those tend to be the kinds of Theists who make th "Who are you to question" argument.

    ---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say that first of all the OP doesn't pose any special problem for Theism, rather it's especially hard implications fall on Atheism. As it deals with "how can we know anything".
    If God exists, then it could be the case that he does give us knowledge, and that knowledge would be the kind we can be most certain about. Like he could have built into us access to logic, objective moral law etc.
    On Atheism, we have no such justification. It is the theist that has cause to think he has access to accurate knowledge, the atheist still has no justification for his access to knowledge.
    I think that I didn't give a good enough overview or summary (judging by some responses and re-reading my OP).

    The essential case I am making is that the Theist and his opponent (be he an atheist, agnostic, or a different kind of Theist) are on the same shakey ground. That is they all are imperfect humans, and whatever they are arguing about are human ideas. One is a human idea of the god he has faith in, the other some critique of that idea.

    This is not to say only Theists have flawed ideas and Atheists rational and correct ones. They might both be rational, they might both be flawed. We are after all, both agreeing human beings are prone to the possibility of error.

    Your counter argument, that God can grant us perfect knowledge is still problematic. While he could have granted you perfect knowledge you don't know that he has. Nor do you know the person you are arguing with hasn't been granted his knowledge from God. You are left in the same state, both people arguing have only their own resources to make and counter claims. Unless you can start shoting thunderbolts out of your ass, it's hard to prove you know the mind of God.

    Consider this, on atheism according to the op, any response I give to answer it, you can not be certain is right or wrong. Because you established that man is flawed. If you do contend that you "know" or "reasonably know" that my response is wrong, then you have released the Theist as well as yourself. .. so then the argument would actually be wrong.
    Correct, same goes for my statement. We both could be very wrong and we have only our human wits, powers of observation, and reason to try and figure it out. Neither of us can say "Who are you to question my infinite knowledge?" At least not with any credibility.

    But that is exactly what the "Who are you to question" argument triest to do. It takes one human persons possition in an argument, and proxies the infalability of the God they profess faith in for their possition. They are trying to say their argument and possition is logically unasailable due to its fiat truth claim.

    It's like a two way genetic falacy. They claim one source of information is true because it comes from what they claim is an infallable source. While at the same time saying the other claim is false because the source is not infallable.

    ---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    It is an interesting OP, but before I reply, can you clarify the actual argument you are presenting?
    Summary: "Who are you to question God?" is a really weak and unconvincing argument in any discussion. Why? Because it is based on uncertain assumptions.

    ---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But if one does not share these premises, then there's no reason that he can't questions God's wisdom. For one, he doesn't necessarily concede that "God's wisdom" even comes from God (either because he doesn't believe in God or thinks that what is presented in not really an accurate reflection of what God truly believes). I mean if I said "God doesn't want you to wear orange hats" and you don't agree with me, does that mean that you are indeed questioning God's word? Of course not, you are questioning what I, Mican, tell you is God's word. It would be your doubt in MY word that makes you not agree with not wearing orange hats.
    Gold star for you mican, that is exactly the core point.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Interesting OP and I am leaning persupositionalist.
    I would say that first of all the OP doesn't pose any special problem for Theism, rather it's especially hard implications fall on Atheism. As it deals with "how can we know anything".
    If God exists, then it could be the case that he does give us knowledge, and that knowledge would be the kind we can be most certain about. Like he could have built into us access to logic, objective moral law etc.
    On Atheism, we have no such justification. It is the theist that has cause to think he has access to accurate knowledge, the atheist still has no justification for his access to knowledge.

    Further,
    Consider this, on atheism according to the op, any response I give to answer it, you can not be certain is right or wrong. Because you established that man is flawed. If you do contend that you "know" or "reasonably know" that my response is wrong, then you have released the Theist as well as yourself. .. so then the argument would actually be wrong.

    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Interesting OP and I am leaning persupositionalist.
    I would say that first of all the OP doesn't pose any special problem for Theism, rather it's especially hard implications fall on Atheism. As it deals with "how can we know anything".
    If God exists, then it could be the case that he does give us knowledge, and that knowledge would be the kind we can be most certain about. Like he could have built into us access to logic, objective moral law etc.
    On Atheism, we have no such justification. It is the theist that has cause to think he has access to accurate knowledge, the atheist still has no justification for his access to knowledge.



    I find this kind of thinking appalling. You base everything on an "if". And then treat that if as if it was a certainty and the atheist must disprove it.
    You create an imaginary creature and then fill that creature with an ability to create things like logic or morality. Then say if it exists then it must be.
    Actually we do have very good reasons as to why we have logic or morality without the need of bringing an imaginary creature in to explain it all. The theist basing all his guesses on a slight probability that does not even make sense has no cause to claim any certainty.

    Where as an atheist certainty is not my problem. You, or any theist has yet to produce any reason to consider doubt. Or at least the reasoning produced so far is easily seen as flawed.

    Further,
    Consider this, on atheism according to the op, any response I give to answer it, you can not be certain is right or wrong. Because you established that man is flawed. If you do contend that you "know" or "reasonably know" that my response is wrong, then you have released the Theist as well as yourself. .. so then the argument would actually be wrong.
    Not at all. What you are doing here is attempting to establish the goal posts for any argument. That there is a possibility of a god. It really does ignore the position of an atheist by doing that. As an atheist your being right or wrong is not that important as it is still nothing more than the discussion of an imaginary creature that can be anything you want. Right or wrong are meaningless terms to atheists as the values are something only a theist acknowledges.

    As an atheist i do not contend that your opinion is right or wrong, merely that it is unsupported and gives me no reason to consider any such creature exists.

    Your argument is not new or unique. it is just another attempt by theists to falsely claim that atheism is a belief that god does not exist. Because it makes it easy for you to produce flaws such as this. But atheism is as the word suggests, a disbelief in god. Nothing more.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    `
    Interesting OP and I am leaning persupositionalist.
    `
    Hello MindTrap,

    Your comment up there has a little age on it (Nov. 27, 2016) nonetheless
    I have some questions for you that relate to your statement.

    (1) Do you still lean toward Presuppositionalism or have you, since your
    comment, fully embraced it?

    (2) Will you share with me any thoughts you might have on VAN TILLIAN
    PRESUPPOSITIONALISM


    (3) And lastly, do you have any thoughts, that you will share with me, on the following:


    William Lane Craig, quoting Henry Dodwell, says:

    "Dodwell argues that matters of religious faith lie outside the determination of reason.
    God could not possibly have intended that reason should be the faculty to lead us to
    faith, for faith cannot hang indefinitely in suspense while reason cautiously weighs
    and reweighs arguments. The Scriptures teach, on the contrary, that the way to
    God is by means of the heart, not by means of the intellect. Faith is the gift of the
    Holy Spirit." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 35

    Then Craig says a few pages later, "I think that Dodwell . . . [is] correct that,
    fundamentally, the way we know Christianity is true is by the self-authenticating
    witness of God's Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the
    experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical [truthful] and unmistakable . . . for him
    who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or
    evidence in order to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the
    Spirit of God . . ."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 43

    Clearly William Lane Craig, one of America's most popular and influential Christian
    Apologist, agrees with Henry Dodwell. Then earlier on page 39 of Reasonable Faith,
    Craig says that he agrees with Alvin Plantinga that belief in God is "both rational
    and warranted wholly apart from an evidental foundations for belief."

    Says Craig:
    "Alvin Plantinga has launched a sustained attack on theological rationalism.
    Plantinga maintains that belief in God and in the central doctrines of
    Christianity is both rational and warranted wholly apart from any evidential
    foundations for belief."__William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 39


    Then this:

    " . . . the role of rational argumentation in knowing Christianity to be
    true is the role of a servant. A person knows Christianity is true because
    the Holy Spirit tells him it is true, and while arguments and evidence can
    be used to support this conclusion, they cannot legitimately overrule
    it . . ." __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 51


    ". . .I'd say that with most people there's no need to use apologetics
    at all . . . " __William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, page 57


    ________


    I am interested in any thoughts you might have on the above, and I ask
    as one who greatly admires the principles set forth above in the Craig
    quotes.

    By the way, I have read a lot of threads at ODN over the years and
    a large number of your posts as well, and have enjoyed and benefited
    from your offerings.



    `

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    It is an interesting OP, but before I reply, can you clarify the actual argument you are presenting?
    Last edited by Someguy; November 27th, 2016 at 11:35 AM. Reason: Meant to say: "This is an interesting OP"
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,639
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    I think the general point is that the argument that one cannot or should not question God is based on a series of premises that are not shared by everyone. If one agrees with those premises, then questioning God is something that should be be done, if not for moral/religious reasons than because it's futile (kind of like a character in a fictional book arguing with the author of the book about what happens in the book).

    But if one does not share these premises, then there's no reason that he can't questions God's wisdom. For one, he doesn't necessarily concede that "God's wisdom" even comes from God (either because he doesn't believe in God or thinks that what is presented in not really an accurate reflection of what God truly believes). I mean if I said "God doesn't want you to wear orange hats" and you don't agree with me, does that mean that you are indeed questioning God's word? Of course not, you are questioning what I, Mican, tell you is God's word. It would be your doubt in MY word that makes you not agree with not wearing orange hats.

    So really not questioning God's word or morality really only applies to those who agree that what they are being told is God's word really is God's word. If you don't agree that it is definitely God's word, then there's nothing wrong about questioning it.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    "How can man, who has limited understanding possibly second guess the infinite wisdom of God?"
    Well, for the purpose of debate and getting more specific, presuming God exists and his nature is absolute love, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, when you say "How can man, who has limited understanding possibly second guess the infinite wisdom of God" -- what does that mean specifically? Can you provide some examples?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So that leaves us those who come to knowledge of god by tradition and/or revilation. And here is the rub. Both of these are human sources of knowledge, and as we have established in item (1) humans are flawed and limited. Thus there will always be substantial doubt as to whether there is a god or not.
    Assuming there is an omnipotent all wise God, then it is logical that He could have the Bible printed word for word exactly as He desires, despite human fallibility. And the Bible says that He did:

    "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16.


    And regarding who will understand the Bible, and who will not, read 2 Corinthians 4:

    4 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

    So, assuming there is an omnipotent and all wise God who has had the Bible written exactly as He wants it, who will better understand His will? The person who believes in God and His Word, or the nonbeliever?
    Last edited by evensaul; November 27th, 2016 at 05:26 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Assuming there is an omnipotent all wise God, then it is logical that He could have the Bible printed word for word exactly as He desires, despite human fallibility. And the Bible says that He did:

    "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16.
    A. We are not going to assume there is an omnipotent all wise God in this discussion. I've already outlined why in my opening statment.

    B. What you offer is a quote from a textual source claiming the textual source is true, simply because it says it is. Any liar will tell you he's not lying. His assertions are not conclusive evidence of his honesty.

    And regarding who will understand the Bible, and who will not, read 2 Corinthians 4:
    More of the same. Not to mention a classic brain washing technique. It creates a genetic fallacy for anyone disputing an argument or possition. "Anyone who disagrees with you is deceived an thus wrong." Cults use that kind of teaching all the time to create a kind of circular logic trap for their adherants.

    I think that the bible is written by human beings, and they can lie and decieve quite readily, not to mention make mistakes. Further, it could well be you don't acurately understand what is in the bible. Your interpretations could be compleately wrong.

    Now you, who has fiath, you don't get to aks these questions. You can only hold faith if you look at the world if these are assumptions that are simply granted as true. But for anyone not sharing your particular version of faith, those beliefs of yours are next to meaningless.

    ---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So, is the main purpose of the OP is to debate God's existence and/or non existence?
    No, not at all.

    It is only to say that when someone says something like "You can't possibly judge God." when discussing a subject, there is no good grounds for that assertion. I can and I will question what you think god's will is because I don't think you are qualified to speak on God's behalf with any more auhtority than you possess as a human being, which is the same authority I possess. Thus we are on equal ground and we must discuss whatever topic we are engaged in on those equal terms.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Correct, same goes for my statement. We both could be very wrong and we have only our human wits, powers of observation, and reason to try and figure it out. Neither of us can say "Who are you to question my infinite knowledge?" At least not with any credibility.

    But that is exactly what the "Who are you to question" argument triest to do. It takes one human persons possition in an argument, and proxies the infalability of the God they profess faith in for their possition. They are trying to say their argument and possition is logically unasailable due to its fiat truth claim.

    It's like a two way genetic falacy. They claim one source of information is true because it comes from what they claim is an infallable source. While at the same time saying the other claim is false because the source is not infallable.
    Good points, and I get what your saying.

    My point is that, one side (theists) are appealing to the idea, not that God is granting them perfect knowledge (though sometime that applies), but to a valid contention that we have cause to think we have access to any knowledge at all, because we are designed to have access to it.

    So imperfect theists, and atheists are appealing to logic, but only the theists can suppose a cause to have access to accurate logic. On atheism there is no reason to think we have access even to imperfect (IE sometimes right) logic.

    My point is there is an added layer of doubt on atheism above theism so they are not on equally shaky ground. (presuppositionalism at work)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that, one side (theists) are appealing to the idea, not that God is granting them perfect knowledge (though sometime that applies), but to a valid contention that we have cause to think we have access to any knowledge at all, because we are designed to have access to it.

    So imperfect theists, and atheists are appealing to logic, but only the theists can suppose a cause to have access to accurate logic. On atheism there is no reason to think we have access even to imperfect (IE sometimes right) logic.
    Atheists and Theists are not living in two different universes. Either we all have access to logic or we don't. You can't have it both ways. If the Theist has access to logic, then so does the atheist. If the athist doesn't have access to logic, then neither does the Theist. Thus, we are on the same standing no matter what in terms of access to logic because we exist in the same reality whatever we may think of it.

    ----

    Further point. The notion that an Atheist has no basis for logic is pretty daft in my book. I can beleive the universe is ordered and rational without believing in some religion's version of God or any god for that matter. If I find that the system of thought we call logic is functional and reliable then it demonstrably is. It is simply one of the observable truths of the nature of the reality I inhabit. I have no reason to presume its existence requires a divine entity, precludes one, or is indifferent to the question.

    ---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, for the purpose of debate and getting more specific, presuming God exists and his nature is absolute love, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, when you say "How can man, who has limited understanding possibly second guess the infinite wisdom of God" -- what does that mean specifically? Can you provide some examples?
    Those presumptions are exactly the problem eye4magic. Also the further presumption that any given person actually knows gods will and wisdom.

    I beleive my OP includes an example. I'll re post for you...

    One human says its a good idea to kiss his hood ornament for good luck while another says that is worshiping a false idol and will get you sent to hell. The ornament guy things going to hell for kissing a hood ornament is stupid and the religious man says "who are you to question god?"
    The religious person in this example A. Presumes there is a god, B. presumes to know he hates people worshiping false idols, C. that kissing a hood ornament is the same as worshiping an idol, and D. that the person doing so will go to hell. That is a whole lot of presumptions on his part, none of which the ornament guy is really bound to agree with or accept. Thus his challenge is totally justified because religions person is making a whole lot of falable assumptions and the ornament guy is arguing with the religious guy, not God himself.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Those presumptions are exactly the problem eye4magic. Also the further presumption that any given person actually knows gods will and wisdom.
    So, is the main purpose of the OP is to debate God's existence and/or non existence?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    "A. We are not going to assume there is an omnipotent all wise God in this discussion. I've already outlined why in my opening statment"

    Okay, I think I see that now.

    A confusing, poorly structured, error-strewn (Have you completely given up trying to spell correctly, or are you unwell?) and illogical op, which boils down to "There's no proof any god exists, so we can't believe anyone who claims to know god's will." Isn't that about it - one compound sentence stretched to a couple thousand words?
    Last edited by evensaul; November 28th, 2016 at 01:07 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A confusing, poorly structured, error-strewn (Have you completely given up trying to spell correctly, or are you unwell?) and illogical op, which boils down to "There's no proof any god exists, so we can't believe anyone who claims to know god's will." Isn't that about it - one compound sentence stretched to a couple thousand words?
    A lot of name calling does not an argument make, and your summary is grossly inaccurate. Mican seemed to understand the point perfectly so read his summary if you want to understand it better.

    If you can actully articulate what is illogical about it, by all means give it a shot, but try to figure out what the actual argument is first.

    ---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by BishBashBosh View Post
    The question already assumes too much. What do you mean by "we" when you say "who are we to question God"? Isn't God supposed to be everything? God would not be all powerful otherwise. Therefore God is the one questioning God.
    Well, in the context of my OP it tends to be a matter of two folks debating. Your point is taken for my part, though not really the ground I'm arguing on.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,019
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    A lot of name calling does not an argument make, and your summary is grossly inaccurate. Mican seemed to understand the point perfectly so read his summary if you want to understand it better.
    I called you no names, Sig. And I don't read Mican's posts anymore.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I called you no names, Sig. And I don't read Mican's posts anymore.
    You insulted me in a number of different ways declaring how poor my argument was without ever explaining why. That's just throwing insults rather than arguments. Do me a favor and don't read my posts any more either. Thanks!

    ---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A small correction. Not that there is no logic, but that on Atheism we have no reason for it, or reason to think we have access to it.
    Look, I find this whole line of argument dumb as a bag of bricks but I don't want to get into it in this thread. You and I disagree about whether god is necessary for logic to exist. I'm happy to take that up with you in another thread and I may start one. In this one, it is immaterial because eitgher we have logic and humans can access it or we don't and the thesis here is that a treu beleiver can't validly claim the mantle of infallability in an argument on ODN or anywhere else that humans argue with one another.

    So there is another line to add to your alternatives.
    That theism right or wrong has a valid explanation. Atheism, be it right or wrong has no valid explanation.
    It is not equal ground when only one position has the potential for a valid explanation.
    A lot of laoded language there with "valid". Validated by what exactly? I can explain the universe came out of the ass of a giant space cammel but that doesn't mean its true or "valid." Explinations are just possiblities. You can rule them out sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes you can verify them through one process or another. I don't need to explain how the sun works to know its hot. I don't need to explain why I need to drink water to survive to die from thirst. A lack of an explination is not proof positive that the phenomena unexplained does not exist, it only means you don't yet fully understand it. The stars turned in the sky long before any man ever tried to explain them and continued when man had all kinds of very inacurate explinations. Just because you can try to explain logic with god, doesn't mean god is the cause for logic. Nor (and I dispute the notion vigerously) would an atheists lack of explination mean there is no logic.

    On both granting human fallibility, it is only theism that has a reason to hope they have access, on atheism there is no reason to hope. And on that count I do not see them on equal ground.
    And I have explaind why that doesn't matter in the least. Whatever person is right, we either both have logic or we both don't. Trying to boil down the significance of your argument, all I can get is "The theist worldview is superior to the atheist one, therefore we should expect the theist to be correct in any argument they make." That still is somethig of a genetic falacy saying that if the source of an argument is flawed, the argument must be flawed likewise. It doesn't work for deductive logic though if you are making some kind of inductie or abductive claim there is some potential to it. But again, its not really pertinant to my case.

    My argument is about one person trying to speak for god and take the mantale of gods infallability for their side of an argument while the other is relegated to being a mere flawed mortal that cannot posibly challenge the possition. That is the sum total of what I am arguing agaisnt. Your take is really kind of a side line to say "Ya ok I'm not god, but any theists has better ground than an atheist because atheists can't even support the existence of reason."

    Is that a fair summary do you think?

    I would have to say that logical arguments are not in the category as "coming from humans". We don't make logical arguments in an appeal to ourselves or our own authority either for or against God.
    Have you ever seen a logical argument come from anything other than a human being? Did someone other than humans codify logic at some point while I wasn't looking?
    Reguardless its we who try to apply it and we don't always do so accurately which is all I need for my case. Both theist and atehsits, whatever the merits of their world view, are capable of errors in logic and thinking are they not?

    I get it, your shaking the table of the discussion upon which we build these pretty card towers of logic.
    Nope, not my aim. It is only to undrmine the illusion that a Theists has built their tower on some immutable eternal and infallable base and are on the same table as everyone else in that they are using their human mind to make these arguments.

    Last point for you...

    My case here is not directed at only Atheists versis Theists but also Theists vs Theists. Say you got a Muslim cleric vs a Catholic priest. Both are going to point at their holy books and say "You can't argue with God!" They will both claim irrefutable absolute proof. But me, looking from the outside am thinking, "Nope you are just two humans having an argument with one another using your own reason to understand ancient works of literature created by other humans who wrote down thir versions of oral history that were told by some other human claiming divine inspiration. You will both have to stop relying on God and sort it out for yourselves as to which one is true using only the facculties incumunt on you as human beings.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn NY Fuggedaboutit
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Hi Sigfried,

    The Hebrew Bible is unique in its revelation concepts (when compared to any other religion on Earth). In short, G-d addresses the issues of "How do you know what Moses or another dude is saying came from G-d?". The issue is treated as a very valid one. G-d then goes about providing proof of his existence and laws directly to the masses without relying on faith alone.

    However, even once G-d is established, He doesn't spoon feed most of the truth to people. He would rather that people go through the process of asking questions of G-d. This makes your growth in life an accomplishment you can earn. So, for the most part, G-d sits back and allows you to debate and discover. That's what a good parent does.

    As to why Rabbis are considered to have more knowledge (or assumed to have correct knowledge) of G-d's will? Its like anything in life. If I am not a baker, and I want to know how to bake cake, I should ask a baker. Bakers spend a lot of time knowing and perfecting their craft, so I can consult them instead of risking reinventing the wheel.

    In that sense, due to study and experience, bakers and carpenters are absolutely not on equal footing when discussing bread. Bakers will know more than carpenters regarding bread. The same applies with Rabbis and G-d vs. a layman's knowledge. This will be true even if bakers, carpenters, and Rabbis are all fallible humans.

    However, in Judaism (and the Hebrew Bible) you get to argue with and question the Rabbis all the time!
    An idealist is willing to suffer for what they believe in.

    A fanatic is willing to make others suffer for what they believe in.

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    Hi Sigfried,

    The Hebrew Bible is unique in its revelation concepts (when compared to any other religion on Earth). In short, G-d addresses the issues of "How do you know what Moses or another dude is saying came from G-d?". The issue is treated as a very valid one. G-d then goes about providing proof of his existence and laws directly to the masses without relying on faith alone.
    I don't know too much about the Hebrew Bible, but willing to learn. I would love to hear/see the proof you speak of

    I'm curious though, if God does provide proof that he exists AND cares how we live life, what is the continued need for faith?

    What purpose does faith serve?

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by RabbiDak View Post
    However, even once G-d is established, He doesn't spoon feed most of the truth to people. He would rather that people go through the process of asking questions of G-d. This makes your growth in life an accomplishment you can earn. So, for the most part, G-d sits back and allows you to debate and discover. That's what a good parent does.
    Ok, let's do!

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The gods that came before god.
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2011, 11:47 AM
  2. Aliens are gods?
    By Oh snap in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2008, 05:03 AM
  3. American Gods.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Book Club Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 13th, 2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Jesus, was he gods son?
    By Bf55 in forum Religion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •