09 May 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59The Laws of Moses in reguards to the joining of a man and woman, where the two would become one in God. In the case of Mary, she joined with God. And became one with Him and begot Jesus.
Could you expand on that and is it "Pudgenik thinking" or mainstream?
In the scripture it states "let no one separate what God has joined", There is a passage in Isaiah that I'll have to find later. Work is calling!!
09 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYeah, (FCA.1) seems altogether pretty shaky too. Let's see if Freaky first agrees with my restatement of his counter-argument; and, if so, then let's see what rebuttal he can mount in support of (FCA.1) and (FCA.2).
I also have strong objection to FCA.1
Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.
We tend to anthropomorphize and attribute intention where none exists.
This natural tendency has lead to belief in gods, including but not limited to
monotheistic gods.
However the idea that these gods were loving, let alone perfectly so, is very
historically ...[text shortened]... eligions have no god/s.
So under no possible valid reading of reality is FCA.1 actually true.
09 May 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloI read it over, mulled it for a few minutes and concluded it's pretty close to an accurate statement.
Freaky, if I understand your objection correctly, you are arguing that premise (4) of the argument is false because the claim that there exists nonresistant nonbelief is false. Here is my understanding of what your counter-argument (FCA for Freaky's counter-argument) amounts to. Please correct me if I have misrepresented anything.
[quote](FCA.1) Huma ...[text shortened]... all the time. The "emotional and behavioral opposition" is required for precisely none of this.
Natural propensities virtually never manifest equally and uniformly throughout a population, and there are virtually always outliers regardless.
Humans use complex language systems which offer a much wider array of expression than used by any other animal.
Typically expressed in the spoken word, this same complexity is seen across other auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli used by man--- including sign language for those who are unable/unwilling to convey information through the usual manner.
So while a case may be made for a lack the complete transcendence of the language of the spoken word throughout man's experience owing to folks who are deaf/unwilling to speak (the outliers), the use of sign language reinforces the idea of an equally manifested and uniform use of language throughout the human experience.
Similarly, all humans have a concept of the divine.
Using the small sample group found herein, there has been but one person of the atheistic persuasion who insists they've never considered God to be true in the nine years since I began frequenting this forum.
That poster's testimony is suspicious at best.
In all my years on the planet, I've not encountered a single person who now-atheist wouldn't admit to ever having a then-theist experience.
I'm not omnipresent, so it's possible the person exists who (after reaching self-consciousness) has never considered the divine as real.
But it's been over 50 years now.
You'd think I would have heard from them by now, right?
09 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeI wonder if you truly appreciate how rich with irony your position is.
I also have strong objection to FCA.1
Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.
We tend to anthropomorphize and attribute intention where none exists.
This natural tendency has lead to belief in gods, including but not limited to
monotheistic gods.
However the idea that these gods were loving, let alone perfectly so, is very
historically ...[text shortened]... eligions have no god/s.
So under no possible valid reading of reality is FCA.1 actually true.
Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.
We tend to anthropomorphize and attribute intention where none exists.
This natural tendency has lead to belief in gods, including but not limited to
monotheistic gods.
According to your evolutionary model of how (lacking why, for some reason) religion developed, the first creature bestowed with the ability to reason comes up with... unreasonable results?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 May 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf that one person isn't me you now know of two.
I read it over, mulled it for a few minutes and concluded it's pretty close to an accurate statement.
[b]Natural propensities virtually never manifest equally and uniformly throughout a population, and there are virtually always outliers regardless.
Humans use complex language systems which offer a much wider array of expression than used by any ot ...[text shortened]... real.
But it's been over 50 years now.
You'd think I would have heard from them by now, right?[/b]
If it is me, then my testimony on this is completely reliable 😉
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
09 May 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sorry, I don't recall mentioning an "evolutionary model" for how religion
I wonder if you truly appreciate how rich with irony your position is.
[b]Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.
We tend to anthropomorphize and attribute intention where none exists.
This natural tendency has lead to belief in gods, including but not limited to
monotheistic gods.
According to your evolutionary model of how (lacking wh ...[text shortened]... d, the first creature bestowed with the ability to reason comes up with... unreasonable results?[/b]
developed, let alone advocating one.
Could we stick to what I do say, and not what you imagine I say.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour claim that no self-conscious human on the planet has not at some point believed in a perfectly loving God is completely unsubstantiated and, frankly, just spectacularly false. There are numerous counterexamples if you would just take the time to listen to their side of the story. I'm afraid all it shows is that you suffer from intellectual provincialism and from an inability or unwillingness to step outside your own narrow milieu.
I read it over, mulled it for a few minutes and concluded it's pretty close to an accurate statement.
[b]Natural propensities virtually never manifest equally and uniformly throughout a population, and there are virtually always outliers regardless.
Humans use complex language systems which offer a much wider array of expression than used by any ot ...[text shortened]... real.
But it's been over 50 years now.
You'd think I would have heard from them by now, right?[/b]
At any rate, I see that you have simply ignored or overlooked my main point, which was that even if you were right that all humans have natural inclination toward theistic belief, that still would in no way justify or warrant premise (FCA.2). Your arguments here simply ignore the true nature of belief formation on theoretical matters. They present only a silly caricature of belief formation, whereby you have pretty much degraded both belief and nonbelief on this matter. On your view, there is no epistemic responsibility attached to theistic belief, since it is just the product of some natural inclination to believe willy-nilly; on the other hand, there is no epistemic responsibility attached to nonbelief, since it is just the product of willful resistance. The actual truth of the matter, apart from your silly caricature, is rather different. The truth is that this, again, is a theoretical matter and many, many mature humans have considered its truth or falsity in a responsible way that weighs evidential considerations. Some will passively come to belief through this process, others not. But in either case, there are overwhelmingly plausible models for how this contrariety can occur even when all parties have been characteristically responsible and honest in their evaluations. I'm sure you'll just continue to ignore all these facts, which is what makes continued debate with you on such matters a pointless exercise.
12 May 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, now. That's some very sloppy thinking and phrasing right there.
Your claim that no self-conscious human on the planet has not at some point believed in a perfectly loving God is completely unsubstantiated and, frankly, just spectacularly false. There are numerous counterexamples if you would just take the time to listen to their side of the story. I'm afraid all it shows is that you suffer from intellectual provinci ...[text shortened]... these facts, which is what makes continued debate with you on such matters a pointless exercise.
Here, you key on my alleged "spectacularly false" claims without the benefit of reading what I actually claimed.
Here it is again:
There isn't a man on the face of the planet who holds to the idea of a non-existent God who didn't first believe such a being exists.
Clearly, I wasn't designating the particulars of this God--- as is evidenced with all of the support I offered afterwards: I was establishing that man has--- without exception--- a sense of the divine.
That establishment was necessary as ground work for the rest of the rejection of the argument; namely, premise two which states that a relationship with God is dependent upon a belief that such a being as God exists.
Bottom line: man knows God exists, even if he doesn't know the particulars (i.e., whether or not He wants a relationship with man, is amenable to such propositions, etc.) so the crux of the argument found in premise two, that belief in God's existence is a necessary ingredient--- while true--- begs the question.
I won't argue what I already know to be true regarding man's inherent position toward God.
I understand that man is naturally afraid of Him, and knows nothing of His character or integrity.
This is why the Good News got its name in the first place: that being you love but fear keeps you from drawing near to, wishes to draw you near and love you unconditionally and forever.
Man knows nothing of this until he hears it.
Instead, he just knows of a God he fears.
There are numerous counterexamples if you would just take the time to listen to their side of the story.
I'm all ears.
In fact, I'd say I listen more than you in this regard.
I've been listening for nearly 50 years to the occasional God-hater, and even more intently to the specific individuals herein for the past nine years all (save two Johnny-come-lately's, both of whose "testimony" is more than a little suspicious) who describe themselves in the same category: former believers all.
Your arguments here simply ignore the true nature of belief formation on theoretical matters.
No, LJ, it is you who doesn't understand (or even acknowledge) the true nature of belief formation.
While man is seen developing self-consciousness and thereafter an awareness of the divine, man needs no outside help in "forming" this belief: it is an inherent aspect of being human.
You're attempting to cut hairs where none exist.
Once self-consciousness is established, man considers the divine and believes He exists.
He does not start from a position of disbelief and move toward belief: he starts with belief.
If anything were to be described as belief formation, it would be atheism!
On your view, there is no epistemic responsibility attached to theistic belief, since it is just the product of some natural inclination to believe willy-nilly; on the other hand, there is no epistemic responsibility attached to nonbelief, since it is just the product of willful resistance.
As I already stated, man has no idea other than fear when it comes to the divine.
He must be taught something other if he is to move from fear to a relationship.
Belief in the divine alone yields nothing other than fear.
The knowledge of the Good News brings man out of fear, out of darkness... into light.
I'm sure you'll just continue to ignore all these facts, which is what makes continued debate with you on such matters a pointless exercise.
I might.
Or I might just learn from ya.
Hard to say, really, at this point.
13 May 14
Originally posted by LemonJello1. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
So which premise(s) are you rejecting?
No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.
2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.
3. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.
4. It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief.
No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.
5. It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
No one is able to just by trying, believing is not enough.
Believing in God is not enough, the devil believes and it will avail him
nothing. There will be many who believe in God but rejected by in the end
due to their love of sin over God and others.
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo you even know what you are talking about? I don't.
Your claim that no self-conscious human on the planet has not at some point believed in a perfectly loving God is completely unsubstantiated and, frankly, just spectacularly false. There are numerous counterexamples if you would just take the time to listen to their side of the story. I'm afraid all it shows is that you suffer from intellectual provinci ...[text shortened]... these facts, which is what makes continued debate with you on such matters a pointless exercise.
Originally posted by FMFI believe the evidence is very convincing for a virgin birth. Even evolutionists believe in a virgin birth, they just use a different name for it.
Exactly, and there is no convincing reason to believe the story ~ or indeed any of the numerous 'virgin birth' stories to be found in various religious literature and mythologies.