Omniscience and omnipotence are inherently contradictory

[James S Saint]

In your example the reply is an ad hom, regardless of the topic or anything else, and regardless of any analogy you care to make.

Well that is kind of interesting considering what you have proposed to NOT be "ad hom".

[Helandhighwater]

Now I'm curious Hel, what exactly has been you topic of debate?

Why?

It does not matter atm. You've just massively derailed the thread into ad homs, admitted I never made one, so why are you asking me that?

I did ask you before why anyone would massively derail a thread into ad homs when no one had ever made one, when they could of much easier just ignored the idea? At the moment it's you derailing the thread, for reasons no one can fathom, nor should be expected to. Do you often jump into threads where no one is derailing them per se and make arguments about ad homs that are just wrong. I would be interested to know. Someone accuse me of ad hom I respond, when someone admits I wasn't making one, the question is why then continue?

[Helandhighwater]

In your example the reply is an ad hom, regardless of the topic or anything else, and regardless of any analogy you care to make.

Well that is kind of interesting considering what you have proposed to NOT be "ad hom".

No it isn't once again you are not following the argument.

I need to go and you guys need to start tackling my argument. We can dance this dance forever, if you want to I will be back tomorrow. Cya later.

[James S Saint]

Now I'm curious Hel, what exactly has been you topic of debate?

Why?

It does not matter atm. You've just massively derailed the thread into ad homs, admitted I never made one, so why are you asking me that?

I never said that you never made one. I never accused you of one.
The derailing was first the issue of what an ad hom really was. I made on comment on what the term actually means (and has been supported by all of the reference quotes). You took it personally and derailed the topic in defense of yourself (which was never my topic at all).

And now, when I actually ask what you were trying to say prior, you are still talking merely about yourself and the people on the thread rather than the question and topic at hand.

Get over the personal sensitivity, guy.

[Uccisore]

Just for the record, an insult is only an ad hominem if it's used to refute or make a point in an argument. Example:

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because you're an asshole."

ad hominem.

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because he believed philosophy shouldn't be written down, you asshole. "

Not an ad hominem.

Helandhighwater is guilty of insulting people (and of being a coward who can't back up his mouth when called to task, it would seem), but not of ad hominem. At least, not in the stuff of his I've looked at.

[Helandhighwater]

Now I'm curious Hel, what exactly has been you topic of debate?

Why?

It does not matter atm. You've just massively derailed the thread into ad homs, admitted I never made one, so why are you asking me that?

I never said that you never made one. I never accused you of one.
The derailing was first the issue of what an ad hom really was. I made on comment on what the term actually means (and has been supported by all of the reference quotes). You took it personally and derailed the topic in defense of yourself (which was never my topic at all).

And now, when I actually ask what you were trying to say prior, you are still talking merely about yourself and the people on the thread rather than the question and topic at hand.

Get over the personal sensitivity, guy.

So what the hell are you even talking to me about?

Lol. You jumped on me, explained what an ad hom was badly, my question is why, if I never made one, and clearly therefore am well aware of what one is. I ask what your motivation is? I wont get an answer but at this point, your prevarication is at least amusing.

[Helandhighwater]

Just for the record, an insult is only an ad hominem if it's used to refute or make a point in an argument. Example:

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because you're an asshole."

ad hominem.

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because he believed philosophy shouldn't be written down, you asshole. "

Not an ad hominem.

Helandhighwater is guilty of insulting people (and of being a coward who can't back up his mouth when called to task, it would seem), but not of ad hominem. At least, not in the stuff of his I've looked at.

Lol making an ad hom there much.

Ucciscore you haven't addressed a single point I have made and just resorted to ad homs. This is funny, but I really have to go.

Hypocrisy I would ask you to read the post I made about how pointing out hypocrisy is not an ad hom either, but my time would be wasted. See ya later.

[Uccisore]

I'll make another argument: since Jesus fails to fulfil a number of the prophecies of the OT, he clearly is not "descended" from the line of David,

That would only be true if you believe that a a descendant of the line of David would actually fulfill all the prophecies of the OT. Are you saying you believe that, or are you saying that every Christian has to believe that, or what? Even assuming you're right that there's some prophecy in the OT that Jesus didn't fulfill (that is certain to be a reference to him, that is, and you may as well provide an example), that's only problematic to a particular kind of biblical inerrantist. As far as I can tell, most Christians aren't inerrantists, especially about the Old Testament- Catholicism doesn't require it the last time I checked, and I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't either.

[Uccisore]

Lol making an ad hom there much.

I just explained to you why calling you a coward isn't an ad hominem in the very post you just quoted. Perhaps you should read it. It is very much an insult, however. You deserve to be insulted for your cowardly, insulting behavior.

[Typist]

So you're asking for something that you think is impossible to provide. That's fine, in and of itself, but of course then the conversation needs to shift to showing that what you're asking for is in fact important or required.

If we're going to be making statements based on some authority, we should be demonstrating that authority is up to the job we have assigned it. True of the Bible, true of reason, true of any authority we may choose. I am simply applying the very same test we reasonably apply to religion to reason as well.

It's simple. That's all there is to it. I decline to believe in reason based on faith, just as I decline to believe in religion based on faith. My position is consistent and intellectually honest.

Ok, let's be intellectually honest, and apply your reasoning to religion as well. Billions of people over thousands of years have found religion to be reliable in improving their daily lives. Given this well established fact, why shouldn't we just accept the authority of religion in regards to issues of infinite scale?

Woah woah woah, I didn't say 'accept the authority of religion', I said "Accept the reliable of reason with regards to religion. The application of reason could lead to one rejecting an authority just as easily, right?

Why should we blindly accept the reliability of reason any more than we should blindly accept the reliability of religion?

Yes, the application of reason can indeed lead to rejecting an authority, which is what I'm doing here, rejecting your authority, as you've failed to prove it's ability to answer these types of questions.

Right, but different in what relevant fashion? We already know that reason works for some stuff.

Agreed, and we also already know religion works for some stuff too. As example, please name any philosopher or scientist who will be an important part of the daily lives of a billion people two thousand years from now. Religion has some people like this, reason does not.

I grant that religious questions might be harder than most/all of that stuff, but to require us to prove the reliability of reason all over again, when you've already noted it may well be impossible seems like a really bizarre step to take without a damn good reason.

Again, why should we blindly accept the ability of reason to answer these questions? The point of reason is to attempt to understand the truth.

If the truth should be that no authority can currently answer infinite scale questions, then that's what have to deal with, like it or not.

If ANYBODY suggests their chosen authority can answer infinite scale questions, then we very reasonably ask for the proof of their assertion. All I'm doing is applying this reason based test equally to all parties.

Reason seems to be reliable for every other problem we approach.

If reason was reliable for every problem, then we wouldn't always be careening from one oncoming calamity to another. Is reason reliable for falling in love? Is reason the real reason either of us are typing here? I doubt it. Will either of us change our deeply held beliefs based on some line of reasoning? Unlikely.

I propose that you're probably like me, and perhaps most here. You're good at reason, and therefore you want it to be applicable to everything. If the things we're good at are applicable to everything, we can be comfortable in the world.

If reason was applicable to everything, this whole God topic would have long long long ago been resolved. The problem is that neither side of this ancient conversation is really that interested in reason. Both theist and atheist want us to blindly accept their chosen authority as they do, which is not reason, but faith.

Ergo, reason is probably reliable for this other problem we're approaching.

Built upon a false premise.

I have a sense that your good reason is wrapped up in what you're calling 'infinite scale', but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

Sorry, ill defined term on my part. In my way of saying it, the God as the creator idea is infinite scale, in that it proposes an entity above and outside of all rules, systems, natural law etc. That's the fundamental nature of the proposal, something outside of the system.

I used an example elsewhere of the creator of this forum. As the creator, whoever owns this forum is outside and above all forum rules. As posters we are bound by the forum rules, as creator they are not. They can change the rules at any time.

And some people don't like reason OR religion, and want to live life according to their intuitions or preferences without interference from either one. We can attribute base interests to ANY approach...

I'm not attributing base interests to anybody. I'm just trying to understand why so many of us believe almost absolutely in authorities whose ability we can not demonstrate. It's reasonable to wonder this about the religion worshipers, and the reason worshipers as well. Anybody who believes, without proof.

I'm not clear on what precisely issues of infinite scale are. Is whether or not Jesus likely rose from the dead a matter of infinite scale, for example?

Sorry, my bad. What evidence do we have that anybody is in a position to understand things which may or may not lie outside of the systems we normally rely on to analyze things? If there is a God which is above and outside all natural law, how would we analyze such a thing?

Here's a concrete example. Let's say we are searching for new distant galaxies. I'm using binoculars to conduct my search. Before I publish my results, my first burden is to demonstrate that my binoculars could find distant galaxies if they are there.

Only if there's some other tool which might be better suited to the task!

No! If the facts are that no tool is capable of the job, then those are the facts, like them or not. If somebody wishes to propose that their tool is able to do the job, they bear the burden of demonstrating that.

Again, this is the very challenge we reasonably present to religion, presented fairly to reason as well. All I'm doing is applying the standard equally. All I'm doing is reason, in an intellectually honest manner. That's all there is to this.

But that blanket acknowledgement of human limitation doesn't force the research to a standstill. It's not as if we say "All we have is binoculars, so let's cease talking about space altogether", which sounds like what you're advocating.

What I'm saying is...

If nobody can convincingly demonstrate the ability of their chosen tool for the job at hand, let's recognize this fact. I agree the facts may change, but until they do, until somebody proves the ability of their tool, let us conduct our investigation based on the facts as we currently know them.

And what I propose we currently know is...

Nobody has proven the ability of their tool to address the question. Lots of people, on all sides, wish for us to accept their tool without first providing the required evidence. Those are the facts I see.

From the point of view of a rational believer or a theistic philosopher, we have plenty of data showing that religion and/or reason can be useful in answering such questions, as they are engaged in the very act of doing so.

You keep making this point. And I will keep asking you to make it in an intellectually honest manner. If you judge reason useful for this job because lots of people declare it useful, then we must also agree the Bible is useful for this job because lots of people declare it useful. No cake and eat it too please.

Well, in reality we were making reliable predictions about the behavior of planets based on observing the planets, and we actually concluded what some of the laws of physics were based on those observations.

I agree with this.

It wouldn't! But declaring and believing that it wouldn't is an example of you applying reason to a question of infinite scale, and (apparently) seeming satisfied with the results you got.

Agree with this too. Are you saying that me being satisfied with my reasoning is proof that my conclusion is true?

What I'm saying is that a great many of us are satisfied that our chosen authority is delivering reliable answers, but this isn't proof that any of us know WTF we're talking about. I include myself in that group.

[Helandhighwater]

I'll make another argument: since Jesus fails to fulfil a number of the prophecies of the OT, he clearly is not "descended" from the line of David,

That would only be true if you believe that a a descendant of the line of David would actually fulfill all the prophecies of the OT. Are you saying you believe that, or are you saying that every Christian has to believe that, or what? Even assuming you're right that there's some prophecy in the OT that Jesus didn't fulfill (that is certain to be a reference to him, that is, and you may as well provide an example), that's only problematic to a particular kind of biblical inerrantist. As far as I can tell, most Christians aren't inerrantists, especially about the Old Testament- Catholicism doesn't require it the last time I checked, and I'm sure the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't either.

It says that in The OT, are you claiming that is false, that the prophets who said that are wrong? That only The NT is true, even Jesus was not that bold. Well at least you're addressing my points now and not just making endless ad homs about me being a person you would with your majesty look like an idiot, and who is a coward for choosing not to discuss specific faiths for the reason that nothing will be accomplished. A hero goes into battle hoping to achieve something, and idiot goes into battle knowing full well nothing will be served by it. You can't change a zealots mind, you can only make him a martyr.

[Typist]

With efficiency in mind, and to save space on the forum, I wish to hereby issue a blanket generic ad hominem to all members of all threads.

Thank you for reading this public service announcement. We return now to our regularly schedule programming.

[Uccisore]

If we're going to be making statements based on some authority, we should be demonstrating that authority is up to the job we have assigned it. True of the Bible, true of reason, true of any authority we may choose. I am simply applying the very same test we reasonably apply to religion to reason as well.

That's fine. I'm not going to defend religion as a method or an authority, because I don't think it is one in the sense we're talking about. I'll defend reason though, on the grounds that it appears to be a valid authority on every other subject known to man, and I see no special reason why religious matters would be the one and only exception.

It's simple. That's all there is to it. I decline to believe in reason based on faith, just as I decline to believe in religion based on faith. My position is consistent and intellectually honest.

Which doesn't not preclude it's being incorrect, or useless, or silly, or counterproductive toward some end. Not saying view IS or is not any of those things, just saying that consistency and honesty don't guarantee a position to be free of difficulties.

Why should we blindly accept the reliability of reason any more than we should blindly accept the reliability of religion?

There's a couple answers to that question. Thomas Reid, Immanuel Kant and some others would argue that we have to do so because we have no choice. There are certain faculties or categories of thought that we simply have to take for granted in order to function as human beings at all. Some other folks would argue that we can accept the reliability of reason on pragmatic grounds- because it tends to give us the results we want. I suppose I'm somewhere between - I see no good reason to doubt rationality as reliable, and I see no reason that skepticism is a better position than faith by default, and I see plenty of good results from using and trusting my reason on the assumption that it's reliable, so I accept it as such.

Agreed, and we also already know religion works for some stuff too. As example, please name any philosopher or scientist who will be an important part of the daily lives of a billion people two thousand years from now. Religion has some people like this, reason does not.

That's simply because religion interacts with people's daily lives on a one-to-one basis, and philosophy and science usually don't. Any Christian whether now, a thousand years ago, or a thousand years from now owes a great debt to Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and a score of others whether they have heard their names or not.

Again, why should we blindly accept the ability of reason to answer these questions?

And why should we blindly doubt it? You seem to be assuming that doubt is a better position than acceptance, all else being equal. And all else is NOT equal- we already have evidence that reason can answer a variety of other questions, which gives at least anecdotal evidence that it should be applicable to these questions too.

I propose that you're probably like me, and perhaps most here. You're good at reason, and therefore you want it to be applicable to everything. If the things we're good at are applicable to everything, we can be comfortable in the world.

Actually, the last paper I won an award for was about how our reasoning processes are in fact underpinned by emotional/moral responses to things, and that rationality is informed by the passions much more than the other way around.

[/quote]
If reason was applicable to everything, this whole God topic would have long long long ago been resolved. [/quote]

Well, for billions of people it is. Almost everybody, in fact. But then some of those people die and some new people are born and on it goes. Hell, if you want to be that way about it, there's folks arguing that vaccinations are bad and dangerous, that a potato that had an ultraviolet light shone on it for a while is unhealthy to eat, or that falling asleep in a room with a running electric fan will kill you. Do you really want to set global consensus as the standard for whether or not reason is applicable to a topic?

The problem is that neither side of this ancient conversation is really that interested in reason. Both theist and atheist want us to blindly accept their chosen authority as they do, which is not reason, but faith.

If you say so. Not the theists I run with, but we probably read and talk with very different crowds.

Sorry, ill defined term on my part. In my way of saying it, the God as the creator idea is infinite scale, in that it proposes an entity above and outside of all rules, systems, natural law etc. That's the fundamental nature of the proposal, something outside of the system.

OK. I can accept that because God is outside of the system, as you say, that there are certain things we can't know about Him. I'm perfectly willing to admit that, and I think you're right as far as that goes. However, even an acknowledgement of "we don't know" is a factor that can be considered when we talk rationally about something. Um, a good example would be Plantinga's refutation of the Problem of Evil, where he essentially builds his argument around the fact that God could very well have reasons for doing things that we don't understand.

Something we can't know is just a variable in an equation. Math works with variables all the time.

It wouldn't! But declaring and believing that it wouldn't is an example of you applying reason to a question of infinite scale, and (apparently) seeming satisfied with the results you got.

Agree with this too. Are you saying that me being satisfied with my reasoning is proof that my conclusion is true?

No, it's proof that you apparently DO think that you can apply reason to religious matters, even if you don't consciously acknowledge the fact. You just did it, right here in front of me. Relates to what I said above- that a variable can be worked with or worked around without shutting down an entire field of discussion.

[Uccisore]

It says that in The OT, are you claiming that is false, that the prophets who said that are wrong?

Well, I have no idea what prophecy or prophecies you're talking about, so making a declaration like that seems a bit premature, don't you think?

That only The NT is true, even Jesus was not that bold.

It would be hard, since the NT didn't exist and the OT wasn't a decided collection in Jesus' time anyway.

Well at least you're addressing my points now and not just making endless ad homs

I already explained to you what an 'ad hom' is and what's it's not. Seriously- 'ad hominem' is not just another word for 'insult' that you use to sound Super Smart. You should check out my explanation.

A hero goes into battle hoping to achieve something, and idiot goes into battle knowing full well nothing will be served by it.

Interesting.

You can't change a zealots mind, you can only make him a martyr.

Interesting. So are you saying you're going into this knowing full well nothing will be served by it? Feel free not to respond if you prefer cowardice over idiocy. It's a strange corner you've painted yourself into, I admit.

[Typist]

That's fine. I'm not going to defend religion as a method or an authority, because I don't think it is one in the sense we're talking about.

Right, I'm not asking you to defend religion of course.

I'll defend reason though, on the grounds that it appears to be a valid authority on every other subject known to man, and I see no special reason why religious matters would be the one and only exception.

Yes, I understand, you are a reason believer. Ok, I have no problem with this, just as I have no problem with Bible believers.

As a person who claims that no authority has been proven, I'm not really in a position to declare anybody wrong, which happens to be one of the practical social benefits of this position.

I would only add that as a reason believer, you're not really being fully loyal to your own chosen authority. You're not applying the same test you apply to religion to reason as well, as the rules of reason would seem to demand. I propose reason is just as ruthless as any Jehovah.

Which doesn't not preclude it's being incorrect, or useless, or silly, or counterproductive toward some end. Not saying view IS or is not any of those things, just saying that consistency and honesty don't guarantee a position to be free of difficulties.

Agreed. Again, reason is not a proven tool here, and this applies to my reason as well as anybody else's. I type confidently but in the end, by my own philosophy, I have to agree I could be completely wrong.

Why should we blindly accept the reliability of reason any more than we should blindly accept the reliability of religion?

Thomas Reid, Immanuel Kant and some others would argue that we have to do so because we have no choice.

I argue we surely have the choice to not blindly believe in anything.

There are certain faculties or categories of thought that we simply have to take for granted in order to function as human beings at all.

It is proven that reason is how human beings make their living on this earth. Fish swim, birds fly, we reason. Agreed. This tells us nothing about reason's ability to analyze the big picture issues religion attempts to address.

Some other folks would argue that we can accept the reliability of reason on pragmatic grounds- because it tends to give us the results we want.

Yes, we can make the same argument for religion. If it keeps us sane long enough to get through life, it has a value, whether the assertions are true or not. I believe the results we usually want is the sense that we pretty much know what's going on, and both reason and religion can perform this job for people.

I suppose I'm somewhere between - I see no good reason to doubt rationality as reliable, and I see no reason that skepticism is a better position than faith by default, and I see plenty of good results from using and trusting my reason on the assumption that it's reliable, so I accept it as such.

Generally speaking, I agree reason is a good system.

But in this particular special case, we are discussing a proposed entity said to have invented reason itself. By definition, such an entity would not necessarily be bound by rules that it itself created. I remind you of the forum owner analogy. We can't predict the forum owner's behavior, as they are not bound by the rules they themselves created.

Religion believers propose such an outside agent exists, without proof. Reason believers propose that human reason, the ability of one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies, is binding on everything, an equally speculative claim.

Each side tends to believe so deeply in their chosen authority, that they can't imagine a reality in which their chosen authority is not sovereign. The human condition, shared by very many of us, on all sides.

That's simply because religion interacts with people's daily lives on a one-to-one basis, and philosophy and science usually don't. Any Christian whether now, a thousand years ago, or a thousand years from now owes a great debt to Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and a score of others whether they have heard their names or not.

Nobody prays to Plato, as far as I know. My point is only that religion has some very big accomplishments, just as reason does.

And why should we blindly doubt it? You seem to be assuming that doubt is a better position than acceptance, all else being equal. And all else is NOT equal- we already have evidence that reason can answer a variety of other questions, which gives at least anecdotal evidence that it should be applicable to these questions too.

Again, all I'm doing is applying the very same test we apply to religion, to reason as well. There is anecdotal evidence that religion is useful for many things, and anecdotal evidence that reason is useful for many things. In both cases, being useful for many things does not automatically equal being useful for everything.

I'm only doubting "useful for everything" claims by all sides, as there is no evidence of useful for everything by anybody.

We might recall how big everything actually is. So big, that we actually have no idea how big.

Actually, the last paper I won an award for was about how our reasoning processes are in fact underpinned by emotional/moral responses to things, and that rationality is informed by the passions much more than the other way around.

I'm sure you made a well reasoned argument, for fundamentally emotional reasons. Me too!

Do you really want to set global consensus as the standard for whether or not reason is applicable to a topic?

Everybody is free to decide this for themselves.

Your reasoning is that reason has been useful in understanding much of reality, which of course I agree with.

You leap from that agreed upon fact, to a sweeping proposal that reason is therefore useful for analyzing ALL of reality.

But you can't define what all of reality is. You have no idea what percent of all of reality we currently know about, thus you have no basis upon which to make your leap.

What we currently know about might very well be .000000000000000000000000000001% of all of reality, rendering your sample useless. As example, only 100 years ago we discovered billions of galaxies we didn't know were there. What else are we missing? We have no idea.

I'm proposing only that, using reason, we can see that your leap of faith is understandable, but not reasonable. Thus, I personally choose not to believe in your leap. It could be true, or not, seems equally possible to me.

OK. I can accept that because God is outside of the system, as you say, that there are certain things we can't know about Him. I'm perfectly willing to admit that, and I think you're right as far as that goes.

Ok.

However, even an acknowledgement of "we don't know" is a factor that can be considered when we talk rationally about something.

Sure, that's what I'm doing, we're doing together.

Something we can't know is just a variable in an equation. Math works with variables all the time.

How will we use math to analyze a proposed entity said to have invented math, and thus not bound by the rules of math? Imho, you're not yet fully grasping the essence of the God proposal.

No, it's proof that you apparently DO think that you can apply reason to religious matters, even if you don't consciously acknowledge the fact.

I totally agree we can apply reason to religious issues, and that I am doing so. No problem there. I am reasoning that IF there is something outside of reason, reason would not be able to analyze it.

You just did it, right here in front of me. Relates to what I said above- that a variable can be worked with or worked around without shutting down an entire field of discussion.

It's not my goal to shut down the discussion, as is shown by my endlessly wordy typing on this topic.

Rather it is my goal to base the discussion on what we can know, on facts as best we can. To me, this is reason. I propose the facts we can know are that....

We don't know.

Not easy, but very simple. Just three words. I don't know.

Recognizing this not knowing as a fact need not end the conversation. But...

If someone really feels the Bible is the word of God, that settles the matter for them, and they would understandably have little need of continuing. Same for reason believers. If anybody sincerely believes they already have the answer, what purpose would further questions serve?

It's only by acknowledging the possibility of our ignorance that further discussion has meaning.

Thanks for the conversation, I appreciate the time you are investing in this tag team match, and the skill you are bringing to the table.

[phyllo]

Never said that straw man. What did I actually say? Do you even know?

I notice you don't quote what I said now, because if you did it would make your argument unsound. This is not cherry picking this is worse, this is not even bothering to acknowledge what I said in the argument before you make it. I can only assume you think everyone who is reading this has not read it either?Can you actually make an argument that relates to what I said.

I love how you tend to ignore any questions, just like everyone else, and just jump into logical fallacies like a diver a diver who has not seen the sea in ten years and really needs to.

This is what you said:

If religion were pure a lot of questions would be resolved. However not only is it impure but these questions are far from answered given the claims of religious people. So we have two choices, believe there is a perfect message but many people have gotten it wrong hence the whole of religion. Or believe there is something funny going on. As I say tip of the iceberg, if you take the time to run through anything any man has said it clearly is loaded with contradictions. We have however to believe that prophets and or kings were immune from such mistakes.

Nah.

In religion, a prophet, from the Greek word προφήτης (profétés) meaning "advocate", is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy.

wiki

you do know that just makes my point for me.

Someone who is privy to divine inspiration, which hence must be perfect, but who is capable of error? does God make his direct messages prone to error then, or do we analyse everything the prophets say, and apologise for all the errors in a new more interesting way, that avoids owning up to the catalogue of problems all prophecies in The Bible have?

Apologists are interesting people, they have a great deal of ways of saying just believe, and a great lack of ability in logic.

Your questions are rhetorical. Why would I respond to them??

[Uccisore]

Yes, I understand, you are a reason believer. Ok, I have no problem with this, just as I have no problem with Bible believers.

Well, technically I'm both, I just think reason is the 'authority' as you put it that guides me to belief in the Bible. I won't defend religion or the Bible as authorities because I don't think they are, independent of reason.

As a person who claims that no authority has been proven, I'm not really in a position to declare anybody wrong, which happens to be one of the practical social benefits of this position.

Ya, positions that don't require you to have any firm stands are certainly have a lot of popular social appeal right now.

I would only add that as a reason believer, you're not really being fully loyal to your own chosen authority. You're not applying the same test you apply to religion to reason as well,

I apply the test of reason to religion. I can't apply the test of reason to reason, because that would be a circular argument and thus, unreasonable.

It is proven that reason is how human beings make their living on this earth. Fish swim, birds fly, we reason. Agreed. This tells us nothing about reason's ability to analyze the big picture issues religion attempts to address.

Of course it does. It tells us all we need to know, again, unless there's some reason to think religious issues are a special exception. So far, the only justification I've seen you give to religion being a special exception to the rule of reason, is that nobody has proven it ISN'T one. Which is kinda silly.

But in this particular special case, we are discussing a proposed entity said to have invented reason itself. By definition, such an entity would not necessarily be bound by rules that it itself created.

Nope. Nope on all counts. For one thing, it's not generally accepted that God created reason in the way He created the world- in the sense that there was a time before which reason did not exist. Secondly, even if God was the source of reason, this would not imply that He wasn't bound to it. I'm more inclined to think that reason and morality both are things that exist eternally as part of God's nature.

Each side tends to believe so deeply in their chosen authority, that they can't imagine a reality in which their chosen authority is not sovereign. The human condition, shared by very many of us, on all sides.

I am much less interested in your characterization of what these supposed 'sides' tend to do, and more interested with your arguments. I personally don't fit into the sides you describe, the behaviors you describe, and the professional theistic philosophers I read don't really seem to either. I think you're characterizing the attitudes of laymen, which are of not much interest to me.

Again, all I'm doing is applying the very same test we apply to religion, to reason as well.

Well, see my problem with that above.

Your reasoning is that reason has been useful in understanding much of reality, which of course I agree with.

You leap from that agreed upon fact, to a sweeping proposal that reason is therefore useful for analyzing ALL of reality.

Until we have some reason to believe otherwise, yes. I apparently don't think that's as much of a leap as you do. It seems like a natural enough intuition to me.

But you can't define what all of reality is. You have no idea what percent of all of reality we currently know about, thus you have no basis upon which to make your leap.

Well, if there's some aspect about reality I know nothing about, obviously I'm not talking about that, right? It's sufficient to say 'reason is an adequate tool to examine all aspects of reality I have encountered or heard about'. Yeah, maybe there is some other part of reality to which reason doesn't apply. Presumably when such a thing presents itself, it's imperviousness to reason will be apparent somehow, though. I'm not just going to suppose it.

How will we use math to analyze a proposed entity said to have invented math, and thus not bound by the rules of math?

Insofar as math is logic, not only is this position not proposed, but it's vehemently denied by such Christian thinkers as Thomas Aquinas, for example. I think maybe we've reached the core of our disagreement. A God who is not bounded by logic or reason or math or morals or anything else would be impossible to understand- He could both exist and not exist at the same time. He could do two contradictory things at the same time for incompatible reasons. He could both be a cheese sandwich and be eating the cheese sandwich that he is. There would be no point in applying reason to try to figure out what that God was doing because any conclusion you come to could be both true and false, as could the premises you built the conclusion up from.

However, this is not the God of Christianity.*

The God I believe in is a very powerful, though logical and coherent Being. He is good in a way that humans can understand as good (even if His precise motivations aren't always apparent), He can't be in contradiction with Himself, and so on.


* I am aware that there are mystical traditions that do suppose that type of God, but I don't think they have much in the way of traditional support.

[Typist]

Well, technically I'm both, I just think reason is the 'authority' as you put it that guides me to belief in the Bible. I won't defend religion or the Bible as authorities because I don't think they are, independent of reason.

Ah, ok, thanks for helping me better understand your perspective.

Ya, positions that don't require you to have any firm stands are certainly have a lot of popular social appeal right now.

Although I may be entirely wrong, my position as stated is a pretty firm stand. I politely defy you to prove anybody knows the answers to the questions we are discussing. I'm absolutely positive that nobody knows anything.

I apply the test of reason to religion. I can't apply the test of reason to reason, because that would be a circular argument and thus, unreasonable.

There's nothing circular or unreasonable about examining the limits of reason, just as we would examine anything else. As example, reason doesn't appear to be especially helpful to falling in love. In fact, the absence of reason often comes in darn handy in that regard. You've been examining reason with reason throughout our entire exchange.

Of course it does. It tells us all we need to know, again, unless there's some reason to think religious issues are a special exception.

Yes, there is a reason that the God proposal at least is a special exception. God is proposed to be above and outside of any system of rules.

Again, please try the forum owner analogy. The forum owner is above and outside any rules on this forum. This makes the forum owner fundamentally different than us.

As example, while we can safely predict that if I start uploading porn to the forum, I'll be probably be banned, because porn is likely against the rules. The rules are a predictable guide to what will happen in my case, and thus the rules are useful for analysis.

The rules don't apply to the forum owner, thus, the forum owner is a special case. The forum owner isn't just another member to be analyzed with the rules.

So far, the only justification I've seen you give to religion being a special exception to the rule of reason, is that nobody has proven it ISN'T one. Which is kinda silly.

The proposal of something outside of the system of natural law is a special exception case by definition. It's not my doing.

Nope. Nope on all counts. For one thing, it's not generally accepted that God created reason in the way He created the world- in the sense that there was a time before which reason did not exist.

If God created everything, he created reason too, yes?

Secondly, even if God was the source of reason, this would not imply that He wasn't bound to it. I'm more inclined to think that reason and morality both are things that exist eternally as part of God's nature.

Ok, that could be of course, but now we're discussing a limited god, bound by it's own nature, just as we are.

I am much less interested in your characterization of what these supposed 'sides' tend to do, and more interested with your arguments. I personally don't fit into the sides you describe, the behaviors you describe, and the professional theistic philosophers I read don't really seem to either. I think you're characterizing the attitudes of laymen, which are of not much interest to me.

Ok, fair enough. I admit to being more interested in laymen, given that they make up the overwhelming vast majority of humanity.

Whoops, gotta go! More later...

[Typist]

I think maybe we've reached the core of our disagreement. A God who is not bounded by logic or reason or math or morals or anything else would be impossible to understand- He could both exist and not exist at the same time. He could do two contradictory things at the same time for incompatible reasons. He could both be a cheese sandwich and be eating the cheese sandwich that he is. There would be no point in applying reason to try to figure out what that God was doing because any conclusion you come to could be both true and false, as could the premises you built the conclusion up from.

Right, right and right. Now you're getting it.

Without claiming to know if there is a God, or what the qualities of such a God might be, we can use only reason to propose an entity that is outside of human understanding, perhaps in the way that you describe. It's very simple!

Human beings are a single species, on one little planet, in one of billions of galaxies. And that's just the part we know about. We are immeasurably small. These are known facts.

Another known fact is that every form of life ever discovered is intelligent at things it needs to be intelligent about, or it wouldn't be there in it's niche. But, the ability of every form of life is quite limited. Thus, it's completely reasonable to propose that we too are very clever at some things, and entirely incurably clueless about other things.

If we are entirely clueless about many things, then entities that make absolutely no sense to us, such as you describe above, are entirely possible, indeed probable.

The proposition here is, reality is much larger and more complex than the human mind.
As impressive as the human mind is, please recall, we are basically apes with nice clothes who were only very recently living in caves.

However, this is not the God of Christianity.*

Ok. Not a problem for me.

The God I believe in is a very powerful, though logical and coherent Being. He is good in a way that humans can understand as good (even if His precise motivations aren't always apparent), He can't be in contradiction with Himself, and so on.

Ok. No problem here either. In the end, I have no basis upon which to debate your beliefs.

* I am aware that there are mystical traditions that do suppose that type of God, but I don't think they have much in the way of traditional support.

Ok again. Not all that interested in traditional support, so no problem.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Typist,

Can a speck of reality, even tho of reality, know the whole of reality? That is what I see you saying.

Basically we live among way more unknowns than knowns. We scratch at it, and find nuggets here and there ... but never get to the bottom of it all. That's just the way it is. It's like theologists and philosophers trying to explain why there is suffering. In the end we just have to accept our collective limitations ... and admit we're never gonna have more than a few answers, when compared all there is ...

So, asking questions will always lead us into the land of uncertainty. And that's the way it is.

[Mutcer]

Apologists are interesting people, they have a great deal of ways of saying just believe, and a great lack of ability in logic.

I'm basically an apologist, and if you and I got into a logical debate about religion, I'd in all likelihood make you look like an idiot. Just playing the odds; in terms of education, experience, critical thinking skills- the odds are you aren't in my league. I would humble you. Think about that for a moment. You just called out an entire 'profession'. Think about your qualifications in doing so, very carefully, and now consider that here one is, ready, willing, and able.
How do I know how our conversation would go? Because you said what you just said above. It demonstrates a massive ignorance of any actual published theistic philosophy of religion, combined with an unwillingness to study or think critically about your own skepticism beyond the "I got in an argument with this one guy in 9th grade and he couldn't answer me" situation that made you who you are. That made Mutcer who is he. You've shown me your hand, and I see armchair critics like you come and go like leaves on an autumn day.
And just so that you aren't misunderstanding me- there actually ARE educated, clear-thinking atheists and skeptics, and they don't say what you just said because they know better. Dawkins is not one, for example. He is merely the most popular hack, and the people quietly laughing at him behind his back outnumber his fans 2-to-1 at the least.
I am not boasting undeservedly, and I am not in it for myself- but field me whatever question you think apologists can't deal with logically, and I'll put it to bed as easily as I've put to bed anything this hack Mutcer has had to say.

Quantity of people laughing at someone behind their back doesn't reflect the credibility of the person being laughed at. It is a reflection of what the people laughing believe to know about the person.

You may believe you've put to bed much of what I've said. But in reality you haven't. When you can convince me that your God is real with some quantifiable evidence, then I will concede you have one-upped me. Short of that, you are simply arguing for something for which there is no evidence.

[Typist]

So, asking questions will always lead us into the land of uncertainty.

So, as explorers, what do we do once we're arrived in the Land Of Uncertainty? Each of us can answer this question in our own way.

Some will find the Land Of Uncertainty unwelcoming. They'll miss the satisfying comfort of their conclusions, their fantasy knowings, their rightness, their ideological conquests etc. So they'll get back on the boat, and sail back to the home land.

Others will say, "We came to explore, and the Land Of Uncertainty is what we found, so let's explore it."

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

So, asking questions will always lead us into the land of uncertainty.

So, as explorers, what do we do once we're arrived in the Land Of Uncertainty? Each of us can answer this question in our own way.

Some will find the Land Of Uncertainty unwelcoming. They'll miss the satisfying comfort of their conclusions, their fantasy knowings, their rightness, their ideological conquests etc. So they'll get back on the boat, and sail back to the home land.

Others will say, "We came to explore, and the Land Of Uncertainty is what we found, so let's explore it."

All good points Typist ... Some drown in uncertainty. Some swim in it ...

[Uccisore]

You may believe you've put to bed much of what I've said. But in reality you haven't. When you can convince me that your God is real with some quantifiable evidence, then I will concede you have one-upped me. Short of that, you are simply arguing for something for which there is no evidence.

Great! You keep raising grade-school level questions, I'll keep revealing that that's what they are, and we can both come away happy. Keeping 'em coming, Mutcer!

[Helandhighwater]

Just for the record, an insult is only an ad hominem if it's used to refute or make a point in an argument. Example:

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because you're an asshole."

ad hominem.

"Socrates wouldn't have approved of Marx because he believed philosophy shouldn't be written down, you asshole. "

Not an ad hominem.

Helandhighwater is guilty of insulting people (and of being a coward who can't back up his mouth when called to task, it would seem), but not of ad hominem. At least, not in the stuff of his I've looked at.

Quite glad to see you understand what an ad hominem is.

I have insulted absolutists of any faith or creed or lack there of. But not any individual.

I am a coward, I am scared of you, I would hate to get into a debate with you because I am shaking in my boots.

That said, like I give a fuck, I have my reasons, I don't need to explain them to you but I did out of courtesy, chalk that one up how you see fit.