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
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    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. Thanks futureboy thanked for this post
    Likes Ibelsd, MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    343
    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?”

  4. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    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. #4
    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

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,508
    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.

  7. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    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!

  9. #7
    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. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,975
    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. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    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.

  12. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    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!

  13. #11
    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.

  14. #12
    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. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    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!

  16. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,975
    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

  17. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    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.
    I think you are confusing what is commonly accepted, with it's valid or invalid justifcation.
    God is a valid justification for access to logic. Atheism has no such plausibl justification.

    Further, when you are granting the existance of God, it has consiquences in regards to our confidience, starting at access to logic.
    You can't point to human falibility and simply assume God away in the equation (nor assume him into it without cause iether).

    Appealing to logic makes some assumptions that need to be justified.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    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.
    Not the existence of logic, but the access to it.
    Given your human falibility, there is no difference in correctly understanding God, or correctly observing the universe or logic etc.

    My point, is that on theis there is an active force seeking your correct understanding. On atheism there is not.


    Quote Originally Posted by SOY
    I find this kind of thinking appalling. You base everything on an "if".
    Read the OP, it is granting the existance of God for discussion to an extent. Namely that on theism there are aspects of certainty that need to be overcome, addressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOY
    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.
    I really don't see the relevance to what I said.
    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.

  18. #16
    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
    I

    Read the OP, it is granting the existance of God for discussion to an extent. Namely that on theism there are aspects of certainty that need to be overcome, addressed.

    .
    You have not addressed or overcome, but merely pushed to the side. You start an argument on an assumption. Which is fair enough for a theist to do. But not polite to include atheism in there as an inferior based only on your assumption. Especially as your assumption misrepresents atheism.

    I really don't see the relevance to what I said
    In order to make your claim you also made claims about atheism, which are wrong. How theist presents themselves is up to them as it is their own personal imagination as to why or how a god may exist. Where as atheism is just a disbelief in god.

    If you wish to speculate based on imagination that is your concern. But your attempt to down play atheism is false, based on misinformation about atheism.

    You have a right to discuss your imaginary friends with your real friends. But by including atheists in the conversation and still insisting that the assumption you base everything on is sacrosanct is the equivalent of talking about someone while they can hear but not allow them to join in.

    The relevance is that i have pointed out a mistake in your beliefs about atheism as well as shown that your argument fails because i accept the fact that you can add or take any ability you wish to imagine for your belief system. To me it is a work of fiction to be critiqued not judged whether it is right or wrong.

    That kind of judgement awaits you only when you try to push your belief system on to me by making your god's word the law of the land.

  19. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    You have not addressed or overcome, but merely pushed to the side. You start an argument on an assumption. Which is fair enough for a theist to do. But not polite to include atheism in there as an inferior based only on your assumption. Especially as your assumption misrepresents atheism.
    When it comes to explaining power of our access to knowledge, atheism is inferior.
    This is not to show that Theism doesn't face a challenge, but that atheism challenge is greater and they are not on equal footing when it comes to the problem of knowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    In order to make your claim you also made claims about atheism, which are wrong.
    Which one and how was it wrong? .. I'm just not following you well.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    You have a right to discuss your imaginary friends with your real friends. But by including atheists in the conversation and still insisting that the assumption you base everything on is sacrosanct is the equivalent of talking about someone while they can hear but not allow them to join in.

    The relevance is that i have pointed out a mistake in your beliefs about atheism as well as shown that your argument fails because i accept the fact that you can add or take any ability you wish to imagine for your belief system. To me it is a work of fiction to be critiqued not judged whether it is right or wrong.

    That kind of judgement awaits you only when you try to push your belief system on to me by making your god's word the law of the land.
    I think your missing the problems presented and making it personal.

    My point is that on theism one has cause to think they may have access to logic and knowledge.
    On atheism there is no cause to think one has access to logic and accurate knowledge.

    You can dismiss theism as true because you feel it is imagined. But that does not establish atheism's supposed access to logic or knowledge.

    when dealing with the claim "Who are you to question God" (or however it was worded) The assumptions run deep and have implications. I'm not arguing for the truth of either here, just pointing out that he pit is deeper for the atheist position.
    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.

  20. Likes Someguy liked this post
  21. #18
    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
    When it comes to explaining power of our access to knowledge, atheism is inferior.
    This is not to show that Theism doesn't face a challenge, but that atheism challenge is greater and they are not on equal footing when it comes to the problem of knowing.
    .
    The challenge is not greater for atheism as atheism does not have to face this challange. I agree that it is the business of theists to explain just how they have access and what that access to knowledge is. After all it is they who claim some kind of contact with a source of all knowledge. But atheists make no such claim of any kind of knowledge through atheism. There is no explaining power of our access to knowledge through atheism as it is not used for such a purpose. So any claim by you of atheism is in an inferior position is false.



    Which one and how was it wrong? .. I'm just not following you well
    .
    As i have said, you are using atheism incorrectly, for example, you said:
    My point, is that on theis there is an active force seeking your correct understanding. On atheism there is not.
    This implies that atheism covers all aspects, despite also implying that it does it badly. Much as many religions do and do it badly also. Which is incorrect. Atheism is just a disbelief, nothing more.





    I think your missing the problems presented and making it personal.
    Not trying to, but on the other hand what authority are you using that means this is not your personal opinion?

    My point is that on theism one has cause to think they may have access to logic and knowledge.
    My only problem here is the word, cause. Again, i can accept the idea that theists think they have access to knowledge. But if by cause you mean god then the logic you are accessing is usually called circular. " knowledge exists because God exists, and God exists because knowledge exists"

    On atheism there is no cause to think one has access to logic and accurate knowledge.
    Logic and accurate knowledge are two different things. Of logic it is a tool and accessable to anyone who learns how to use that tool. In that alone i have sufficient reason to access and use logic.
    Of accurate knowledge i can make any of the same claims you or anyone should be able to make. Such as the knowledge and skills needed to drive a car. Of exoteric knowledge such as death or the meaning of life. Your guess is no better than anyone else.


    You can dismiss theism as true because you feel it is imagined. But that does not establish atheism's supposed access to logic or knowledge.
    I agree, nor should it. My access to logic is dependent on my ability to learn how to use it. Not my disbelief in god.
    My knowledge in this area, atheism, is not dependent on what i know. It will depend on what you tell me. As I make the point that your god is imaginary and as i am not capable of reading minds or second guessing you or any theist think. Then when i first meet a theist my position must be that of an ignostic. Only after an explenation of your belief can i then take another position, usually that of atheist.

    when dealing with the claim "Who are you to question God" (or however it was worded) The assumptions run deep and have implications. I'm not arguing for the truth of either here, just pointing out that he pit is deeper for the atheist position
    Only because you are trying to laden us with the same burden that theists carry. But the position of atheist is only disbelief. The implications run deep only for the theist who actually cares what god thinks.

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,183
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Who are we to question the gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    The challenge is not greater for atheism as atheism does not have to face this challange. I agree that it is the business of theists to explain just how they have access and what that access to knowledge is. After all it is they who claim some kind of contact with a source of all knowledge. But atheists make no such claim of any kind of knowledge through atheism. There is no explaining power of our access to knowledge through atheism as it is not used for such a purpose. So any claim by you of atheism is in an inferior position is false.
    I think you misunderstand what I mean (or is generally meant) by "access to knowledge". For this conversation just read it as access to logic. If you claim to use logic, then you need to explain how you have access to it. Theism does it, atheism does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    This implies that atheism covers all aspects, despite also implying that it does it badly. Much as many religions do and do it badly also. Which is incorrect. Atheism is just a disbelief, nothing more.
    It carries with it many implications as well. Naturalism is one such implication.. hence the problem with the access to logic/knowledge I point out.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    Not trying to, but on the other hand what authority are you using that means this is not your personal opinion?
    My assertions are not about the current state of my mind. So it is an objective claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    My only problem here is the word, cause. Again, i can accept the idea that theists think they have access to knowledge. But if by cause you mean god then the logic you are accessing is usually called circular. " knowledge exists because God exists, and God exists because knowledge exists"
    Not at all. By cause I mean a sufficient explanation to our apparent access to logic. God is such an explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    Logic and accurate knowledge are two different things. Of logic it is a tool and accessable to anyone who learns how to use that tool. In that alone i have sufficient reason to access and use logic.
    Your simply assuming what you are trying to prove or rather the topic of the challenge. You assume you have access to logic. You haven't actually offered a valid explanation for that access.


    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    I agree, nor should it. My access to logic is dependent on my ability to learn how to use it. Not my disbelief in god.
    I doubt you realize the challenges that are all rolled up into "my ability to learn how to use it". First of all, evolution may have chosen to build you in such a way as to make it impossible for you to learn it, and in fact on naturalism it is far more likely that evolution did just that.

    Quote Originally Posted by GREEN
    Only because you are trying to laden us with the same burden that theists carry. But the position of atheist is only disbelief. The implications run deep only for the theist who actually cares what god thinks.
    I'm not sure I can unravel all the wrong turns you are taking. I hope the above will help. your really making a lot of unnecessary assumptions and bringing a whole lot into this debate.
    I'm not even sure how to start to point them all out to you.
    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.

  23. Likes Someguy liked this post
  24. #20
    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
    I think you misunderstand what I mean (or is generally meant) by "access to knowledge". For this conversation just read it as access to logic. If you claim to use logic, then you need to explain how you have access to it. Theism does it, atheism does not.


    It carries with it many implications as well. Naturalism is one such implication.. hence the problem with the access to logic/knowledge I point out.


    My assertions are not about the current state of my mind. So it is an objective claim.


    Not at all. By cause I mean a sufficient explanation to our apparent access to logic. God is such an explanation.


    Your simply assuming what you are trying to prove or rather the topic of the challenge. You assume you have access to logic. You haven't actually offered a valid explanation for that access.



    I doubt you realize the challenges that are all rolled up into "my ability to learn how to use it". First of all, evolution may have chosen to build you in such a way as to make it impossible for you to learn it, and in fact on naturalism it is far more likely that evolution did just that.



    I'm not sure I can unravel all the wrong turns you are taking. I hope the above will help. your really making a lot of unnecessary assumptions and bringing a whole lot into this debate.
    I'm not even sure how to start to point them all out to you.
    It is questionable as to who is taking wrong turns here. For example your assertion that logic and access to knowledge are the same. Logic is just a form of mathematics which can and does get taught and passed on by people. There is no need to bring a god into this picture to explain how we can understand logic. As far as i am concerned for you to insist an element be introduced to explain what can already be explained without it, then the onus is on you to argue the value of that element. Logic is no different or possess no mystical abilities than ny other subject taught in school. Do I need a god to learn, so far apparently not. Unless you can explain why only god can give logic.

    You are also asserting that logic is something given or inherited when actually it is nothing more than a thought experimental tool that can be taught to most people. There is no more difficulty in teaching logic than there is in teaching a language. And as for your evolutionary thought, that to like your claim of a god, is merely based on an if rather than any empirical evidence or good reasoning. Evolution is not sentient and does not choose. And as we have a tool called logic and can use it your hypothesis that it may not exist seems some what dubious.

    As for your naturalist claim that is called an association not cause and effect. to be a naturalist is not a necessity that you also be an atheist. Nor is being an atheist a valid excuse for considering naturalism. i give you the example of the swedish, whose country has a very high rate of atheists also has a very high rate of people who believe in the existence of elves. When you manage to successfully insert elves into the naturalist philosophy then you can make such claims.

 

 
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
  •